Thread: Argument for 2nd amendment?
Im currently working on a formal argument paper for a college level communication studies course and have decided to do my argument in favor of keeping UOC legal in California. I have several reasons to use as support for my argument but the one that I would like to use as the foundation for my claim is our 2nd amendment rights. After reading SCOTUS' ruling in Chicago vs. McDonald and DC vs. Heller, I see the justices who consented reaffirming our rights as citizens of the US "to use handguns for self defense in the home" and for "lawful purposes". However I do not see anything in either of these rulings that show California would be in violation of the constitution if they banned unloaded open carry. Can anyone shed any light on this for me?
Last edited by alrossitto; 06-16-2011 at 01:57 PM.
New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
As C3 said, the holdings of McDonald and Heller are not about bearing arms. Heller does have quite a bit of language which discusses the right to "keep and bear arms" though, and while it is dicta, it does indicate that the Supreme Court does intend on affirming that individuals have a right to bear arms. Heller specifically mentions three cases where concealed weapon bans were ruled constitutional by lower courts but mentions no cases where open carry bans were ruled that way. It could have made citations to cases to where open carry bans were found to be constitutional but it didn't. Why? It's my opinion that the Supreme Court will eventually rule that states can ban concealed carry but not open carry.
The easiest to read book that is entirely on the subject of second amendment rights is this one. David Young's "The Origin of the Second Amendment" is also good, but EXTREMELY comprehensive (it's nearly 900 pages).
Thanks C3 and bigtoe. I still am thinking I need a better argument for my class paper other than the 2nd Amendment. I appreciate your input. C3, keep up the rural NorCal posts, I love reading the unevents as well as encounters you have with the populous.
The two previous posts are correct. But it is also important to note that the McDonald ruling incorporated the entire 2nd Amendment to the States. SCOTUS did not exclude "bear", and they did not chop up the 2nd, they simply didn't rule on bear.
Take for example the 5th Amendment, the right to not self-incriminate ("pleading the 5th") has been affirmed, but the right to a grand jury has not. This is not the case with the 2nd Amendment and the McDonald ruling.
Because there are so many federal, state, and local laws infringing upon the 2nd, the legal eagles are proceeding very cautiously to get very strong, clear court cases ruled upon to affirm these rights in the judicial system.
I am of the opinion that my 2A rights have been fully restored, however not having several hundred grand to a million bucks to defend my position once arrested, I have no choice but to wait until the 2A associations and foundations lay the brick work at their pace, sequence, and discretion to avoid my arrest and persecution.
"Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin
You may want to go back even further to the inalienable rights that are given by god and only "reaffirmed" by the constitution. That every person has a Natural right to protect their life and possessions.
Although it doesnt happen frequently or often, governments and civilizations fail or stall. When the government can no longer provide for domestic tranquility or temporarily cant provide for it then to make a law that makes your natural right to defense illegal is just plain wrong.
There are many references to use, Katrina gun grab, LA riots, War.
New to OPEN CARRY? Click here first
"Gun owners in California in 2011 are like black people in the south in 1955. If you don't understand that then your concepts of fighting for gun rights is just tilting at windmills." Gene Hoffman.
"Why do you need to carry a gun?" ...Because it not a Bill of Needs, its a Bill of Rights!!
I find it interesting that Calif. LEO's are not obligated to protect us, and the Calif. legislature wants to deny us the right to protect ourselves.
A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.
But really, the second amendment is all we need to justify the right to bear arms. If the government said that people couldn't practice religion tomorrow are you going to start with how religion is important to people or are you just going to point at the first amendment and say, "You can't do that. Here is the contract that binds our nation together. If you are going to ignore this piece of the contract then we the people will ignore your claim to represent us." The gun owners of this country have probably done more to preserve freedom simply by existing than anything else has. We're the final check and balance against the government, and obviously the government would much rather not have citizens capable of stopping them through lethal means.