Analysis by Kyle A. Lohmeier
If someone were to aggregate the topics covered during this first month of The New Mercury’s existence, they’d likely be inclined to think I’ve an unhealthy obsession with guns and drugs. Not so, really. It just so happens that guns and drugs are two things government at every level gets completely wrong, regulation wise. This comprehensively wrong approach is fueled by the ability of a surprising number of adults to convince themselves of falsehoods they themselves have fabricated.
To that end, yesterday found seven adults who are members of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, pretending the Second Amendment says something it doesn’t, or more aptly, doesn’t say what it plainly states. The Ninth Circuit ruled that California’s draconian concealed carry permit process is actually constitutional, even the provision that an applicant show what government considers “good cause” to need a permit. Because…
“The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including a requirement of ‘good cause,’ however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment,” NPR quoted Judge William Fletcher as writing for the full-court majority.
I mean, sure, because you guys said so. A native speaker of the English language who reads “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” should come away with a completely different interpretation, however. One based on, oh say, reality, and not hoplophobic bias? Where does an appellate judge get off telling the country the constitution does not, in fact, say exactly what it says?
Oh, I know. I’ve heard the Left’s argument on the Second Amendment before. The contention that the founders deliberately wrote a sentence where the first phrase negates the last makes about as much sense as Fletcher’s interpretation of the Constitution, or even the English language. That is to say: none at all.
So, now state governments in the region covered by the Ninth District – Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington – could decide to alter their concealed carry permit laws to require applicants show “good cause” to need a permit with impunity, or until this ruling gets appealed to the Supreme Court. The current eight-member bench is a bit of a crap-shoot, though Hillary’s nominee to fill the vacancy will be as hostile to individual liberty as she is. So, it will be interesting to see how this case proceeds from here. As it is, the ruling came as a reversal of a 2014 Circuit Court ruling that got it right and found California’s law obviously unconstitutional. The state has won back its legal power to oppress the serfs now on appeal.
There is no rational argument that can be made to support the ruling. None. It won’t make the average Californian any safer, as the ones Californians need to worry about don’t bother getting carry permits, or legal guns for that matter. In fact, it makes Californians less safe as they now have to convince their hoplophobic government they have “good cause” to exercise a natural human right.
And that is what it is, regardless of what the Left and the mainstream media and whoever else might want to say: to carry a firearm on one’s person is a natural human right inherent to all seven billion-some human beings on this planet. Period. Full stop. The only difference is the degree to which each of the planet’s seven-billion some individuals are oppressed by their government. When it comes to this basic human right, most humans face total oppression. Part of that once-vaunted “American Exceptionalism” is that our government made it a point to protect this human right, not take it away. And, nearly ever since the ink dried on the Second Amendment, government at various levels have tried to do exactly what the Second Amendment forbids: infringe upon the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Or, in this case, an appeals court is pretending words in the English language don’t have fixed meanings.
One of the four intelligent judges on the court wrote a dissent that highlights the bias and lack of philosophical consistency shown by the other seven in making their ruling.
“The Second Amendment is not a ‘second-class’ constitutional guarantee,” wrote Judge Consuelo Callahan.
Indeed. I never had to show “good cause” to exercise my First Amendment rights to launch this blog; which is good, since I’d never ever be able to convince anyone there’s a good cause for this thing to exist. No one needs to show “good cause” to require a cop have a search warrant before they ransack their house. No judge has ever required a defendant to show “good cause” to refuse to take the witness stand in a criminal trial. No turnkey has ever required a prisoner to show “good cause” to not receive an arbitrary beating. No one awaiting trial has to show “good cause” as to why they shouldn’t have to sit in jail awaiting trial for years.
Yet, seven judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals managed to read into the brief text of the Second Amendment a requirement unique to not only the Second Amendment, but to all the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, as well as all those rights left to the states and the people as per the Tenth Amendment (not that anyone ever pays attention to that one anyway).
Wouldn’t it be great if we all had such awesome power? If everyday folks could just read into established law an infinitely elastic “good cause” provision? How awesome would that be?
“Well, yes officer. Clearly 110 is a good 40 miles per hour north of the posted speed limit, but, as you can see there isn’t much traffic and I’m a pretty excellent driver. So, exactly what was your ‘good cause’ for pulling me over?”
“Well, yes, according to established contract law, the fact it is the first of the month means I own you rent, Mr. Landlord person. But, as you’ve arrived here to collect in a very late-model Cadillac CTS, I’m not sure you have ‘good cause’ to extract $900 from me right now, when I could use that money for something else instead. I mean, clearly, you’re not hurting.”
“Well sure officer, technically, a .09 blood alcohol content is legally drunk. But, I’m not sure you have ‘good cause’ to detain me since I just happened to roll into one of your DUI checkpoints and, at .09 BAC I promise I’m a far better driver than a stone-cold-sober octogenarian, anyway.”
Hell, who wouldn’t want to be able to wield such awesome power? And, given how government at all levels tends to abuse any authority given to it, I’m guessing that going forward, Californians are going to find it very, very difficult to establish sufficient “good cause” to exercise their basic human rights legally.
Leave a Reply