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?

alrossitto said:

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?

Click to expand...

As little as I like to admit it, the rulings you are refering to only affirm the right to functional arms for immediate self defense. Unloaded firearms are incomplete and not effective or functional for self defense, unless it can be argued that handguns are suitable as a club. Also it is important to note, the proposed law does nothing to prohibit loaded firearms... I made the appropriate correction in your post above. This brings to light the unconstitutionality of 12031 and the need to challenge the Mulford Act in it's entirety. In time it will be, but anything pre-dating the establishment of a 'carry' precedent in California is premature and ill-concieved.

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.

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.

alrossitto said:

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.

Click to expand...

The UOC ban is aimed at 'speech' by 2nd A supporters. Perhaps take a 1st A approach to your argument.

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. :cuss:

alrossitto said:

I still am thinking I need a better argument for my class paper other than the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

Check out that linked book then. It's the founders view on the right to keep and bear arms, meaning that it delves into why the founders thought the second amendment was important and needed. I haven't looked through it for a while but I'm sure the English bill of rights and Blackstone are discussed quite a bit.

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.