# California's refusal to allow carry of firearms: Unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278 "2014-02-13T20:25:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/101 "2014-03-11T17:01:26Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That is just as meaningless a statement as the one you are objecting to above it. Guess what? If the Second Amendment is repealed, you will no longer have the right to carry firearms. It’s a difference of philosophy I suppose, but I grant that the distinction that I’m drawing has no impact in the application of the right. I make the point because I find that many folks who support gun control haven’t actually read the Heller opinion. This is arguably the most important SCOTUS decision on gun rights in … ever. Things like the recognition of a pre-existing right, or the fact that there was unanimous agreement regarding the right as an individual right, often get missed. So on that point, it was a correction of a factual error. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/102 "2014-03-11T17:04:23Z")
Fair enough. > [@](#): > > State constitutions may mirror, to some lesser or greater degree, the right. … and fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/103 "2014-03-11T17:41:32Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > The constitution forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures.” That word unreasonable makes the right non-absolute. Contrast that with the second amendment. It doesn’t just establish a right. It says the right cannot be infringed. If you chip away at it, you are infringing it. I think you are bringing straw men int the argument. We haven’t seen anyone say “what part of shall not be infringed don’t you undersstand” in a long time. Every time someone says that I remind them that “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is about as clear as you can get and yet we subject God’s word to interpretation. > [@](#): > > As noted above, no, I don’t. > > I realize there has been a bit of a trend, in the US, towards the permanent solution to a temporary problem being to shoot yourself rather than someone else. But getting shot to death is violence, either way. Maye I need to clarify. 1999 is not the bginning of history as faras gun violence is concerned. The rate of gun suicide fluctuates with the rate of suicide and has been fairly steady for a long time. The biggest variable in gun deaths has been gun murders. > **[File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg)** > > Original file (SVG file, nominally 846 × 625 pixels, file size: 601 KB) > Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time. > You cannot overwrite this file. There are no pages that use this file. As you can see despite the rapidly increasing number of guns in society, the rate of gun murders (and gun deaths generally) rose and then dropped entirely independent of the number of guns in society. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I don’t disagree, but the implication is that when the makeup of the Supreme Count changes, however they rule, they still will be defending the second amendment. Second amendment supporters aren’t, I thought, arguing that ever-changing case law is sacred, but that we should respect the words of the constitution itself. And when the friends of guns justify infringements – especially ones that the founders would never have conceived, such as an age limit on the right to arm oneself – they are being living constitutionalists, just like the most liberal of our justices. As a liberal gun nerd, I think youa re painting witha broad brush and picking out the weakest pro-gun arguments to argue against. how about arguing against the arguments actually being brought up here? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/104 "2014-03-11T18:06:11Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think you are bringing straw men int the argument. We haven’t seen anyone say “what part of shall not be infringed don’t you undersstand” in a long time. Every time someone says that I remind them that “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is about as clear as you can get and yet we subject God’s word to interpretation. That’s because “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is a mistranslation. The original is “Thou Shalt Not Murder”. Well, it’s really a plain “Don’t murder”, but if you want to be poetic… ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/105 "2014-03-11T19:18:09Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > That’s because “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is a mistranslation. The original is “Thou Shalt Not Murder”. Well, it’s really a plain “Don’t murder”, but if you want to be poetic… You’re replacing one oversimplification with an even less accurate oversimplification. **[Thou shalt not kill - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_kill)** "The Hebrew verb רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) is the word in the original text that is translated as “murder” or “kill”, but it has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings “to break, to dash to pieces” as well as “to slay, kill, murder”. According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach,[2] even if the killing is accidental." It has been interpreted to exlude things like capital punishment and self defense but that is not the way the word is defined. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/106 "2014-03-11T19:20:42Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You’re replacing one oversimplification with an even less accurate oversimplification. “Thou shalt not murder” is a lot more accurate a translation (without translating it with a paragraph of text) than “Thou shalt not kill”. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/107 "2014-03-11T19:24:09Z")
That’s interesting and all you know…because religion. Wut? ---
**Author:** ![HubZilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@HubZilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HubZilla)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/108 "2014-03-11T19:47:07Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > _ **"Homicides are the number one cause of death for black and Hispanic teens. "** _ I’ve read somewhere that if you take out black and hispanic crime, the USA’s murder rate would be similar to Finland. It was admittedly a racist website which I won’t link. However, the site’s motivations aside, I do wonder if there’s any truth to it. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/109 "2014-03-11T20:23:37Z")
> [@HubZilla](#): > > I’ve read somewhere that if you take out black and hispanic crime, the USA’s murder rate would be similar to Finland. > > It was admittedly a racist website which I won’t link. However, the site’s motivations aside, I do wonder if there’s any truth to it. Well, that’s easy enough to check. US homicide rate is 4.8 and Finland’s is 2.2 (see [List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)). [The Wall Street Journal - Breaking News, Business, Financial & Economic News, World News and Video](http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all) - taking out where killer’s race is unknown (and presuming that the distribution there would be same as in known cases), out of the total of 138K homicides where the killer’s identity is known, blacks committed 67K and Hispanics 16K. Whites committed 50K homicides, or 36%. Whites are about 72% of US population (see [Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States)). So white-killer homicides, if it was proportional to demographic percentage, would have been about 100K (out of 138K). So we can say that white homicide rate is about half of the national homicide rate. So if all of the population of the US was committing homicides at the same rate whites are, US homicide rate would be about 2.4. Finland’s is 2.2. So - plus minus, about the same, yes. Finland and Norway’s homicide rates are pretty high, by European standards. Western Europe’s average is about 1. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/110 "2014-03-11T20:28:28Z")
> [@HubZilla](#): > > I’ve read somewhere that if you take out black and hispanic crime, the USA’s murder rate would be similar to Finland. > > It was admittedly a racist website which I won’t link. However, the site’s motivations aside, I do wonder if there’s any truth to it. Back around 1999-2000 or so I looked at the CDC’s “Deaths: Final Data for XXXX” so they would have been 1997’s or 1998’s stats. The national average firearm homicide rate was about 11 or 12/100,000, IIRC. The rate for black males age 16-30-something was around 33/100,000. Black females came in dead last for either homicides or suicides. Whites overall accounted for the majority of suicides by firearm, but don’t remember the percentages; it was high, though. You can see for yourself at the CDC’s website, but it may take some digging around through the stats to find the breakdown by age/race/etc. One thing I do remember is that suicides accounted for just under 60% (58%-59%) of all firearms deaths, and firearms accounted for something like 60% of all suicides. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/111 "2014-03-11T20:51:24Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “Thou shalt not murder” is a lot more accurate a translation (without translating it with a paragraph of text) than “Thou shalt not kill”. Neither is a perfect translation but murder is not more accurate (never mind “a lot more accurate”) than kill. “killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach,[2] **even if the killing is accidental** ” Do you see why? In any event, it does not exclude killing in self defense. It only excludes killing in self defense as a result of interpretation not as a result of the words used. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/112 "2014-03-11T20:53:25Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “Thou shalt not murder” is a lot more accurate a translation (without translating it with a paragraph of text) than “Thou shalt not kill”. > [@HubZilla](#): > > I’ve read somewhere that if you take out black and hispanic crime, the USA’s murder rate would be similar to Finland. > > It was admittedly a racist website which I won’t link. However, the site’s motivations aside, I do wonder if there’s any truth to it. If you eliminated crime by poor people i suspect you would get similarly idyllic results. If you correct for socio-economic status, I suspect that you end up right about where we are right now. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/113 "2014-03-11T23:37:17Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > [File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg) > > As you can see despite the rapidly increasing number of guns in society, the rate of gun murders (and gun deaths generally) rose and then dropped entirely independent of the number of guns in society. Your link does not support that, showing neither gun deaths generally or the number of guns. To do more of your work for you than I should, you could show, with other links, that [the murder spurt correlated with the crack epidemic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic) wasn’t correlated with an increase in gun ownership (although the end of it was correlated with a decrease in gun ownership). There are exceptions. No one claims there is a perfect correlation between gun ownership rates and gun death. Once in a while you will see a relative outlier, like Switzerland. Having a gun right there facilitates episodes of extreme anger or self-loathing becoming deadly. That’s why gun ownership is correlated with violent death and should be discouraged. Supporting that, see: [http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full](http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full) The correlation between murder by itself and gun ownership isn’t as strong as that between violent death generally and gun ownership. But there is still a good deal, including when you look at change over time: > **[AJPH\_Siegel\_1981-2010.pdf](https://johnrlott.tripod.com/AJPH_Siegel_1981-2010.pdf)** > > 581.51 KB ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/114 "2014-03-12T17:18:29Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Your link does not support that, showing neither gun deaths generally or the number of guns. The graphb is a graph of homicides by weapon type. The blue line is handguns, the green line is other guns. I didn’t think I needed a cite for the fact that we have an ever increasing number of guns in our society. I can look one up for you but the graph slopes upward the entire way. > [@](#): > > To do more of your work for you than I should, you could show, with other links, that [the murder spurt correlated with the crack epidemic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic) wasn’t correlated with an increase in gun ownership (although the end of it was correlated with a decrease in gun ownership). There are exceptions. No one claims there is a perfect correlation between gun ownership rates and gun death. Once in a while you will see a relative outlier, like Switzerland. The Crack epidemic was between 1984 and the early 1990’s. Gun homicides start rising in 1988 until 1994 and then doesn’t stop dropping until 1999. > [@](#): > > Having a gun right there facilitates episodes of extreme anger or self-loathing becoming deadly. That’s why gun ownership is correlated with violent death and should be discouraged. So do trains and bridges and tall buildings, a lot of things facilitate suicide if you really really want to do it. We have a relatively low suicide rate despite having much higher rates of gun ownership. [File:Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg) I don’t doubt that our suicide rate would drop if people didn’t have guns but I am just as sure that some large portion of current gun suicides would be replaced with other types of suicide. But discourage gun ownership all you want, just don’t make laws banning or restricting the ownership of guns or vilifying people who own guns. > [@](#): > > The correlation between murder by itself and gun ownership isn’t as strong as that between violent death generally and gun ownership. But there is still a good deal, including when you look at change over time: > > [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/AJPH\_Siegel\_1981-2010.pdf](http://johnrlott.tripod.com/AJPH_Siegel_1981-2010.pdf) Are yous aying that being a gun owner makes me more likely to commit suicide? Or that people who are going to commit suicide frequently buy guns? Are you saying that people with guns get murdered or that people who are at risk of getting murdered tend to buy guns? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/115 "2014-03-12T17:45:57Z")
Can you guys take this hijack to another thread? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/116 "2014-03-12T17:50:55Z")
The one about the 10 Commandments or the one about darkies doing all the murderin’? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/117 "2014-03-12T23:25:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I didn’t think I needed a cite for the fact that we have an ever increasing number of guns in our society. Maybe you do, but it wouldn’t mean much if you include people who go from, say, three guns in the house to five. Most, not all, evidence I have seen on what’s more significant – the rate of gunownership – goes the other way: > **[Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline (Published 2013)](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0)** > > The rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 35 percent in the 2000s, suggesting a shift in demographics even as the debate over gun control remains contentious. > [@](#): > > I can look one up for you but the graph slopes upward the entire way. Sounds good. But if you want to convince, I’ll mention that I’m a fan of peer review, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Are you saying that people with guns get murdered or that people who are at risk of getting murdered tend to buy guns? As you may recall, I am a supporter of suicide prevention, and most US gun deaths are suicide. That I am saying. I’m going with the public health research that strongly associates having a gun in the house with getting shot. Based on my gun-owning acquaintances, I think it has more to do with watching FoxNews in safe distant suburbs than risk of being murdered. But that’s anecdotal evidence. > [@Bone](#): > > Can you guys take this hijack to another thread? I’ll consider it. To get back the OP: The US Constiution means what the Supreme Court says it means, and, on the right to bear arms, they’ve been silent. Isn’t this accurate: [The court has yet to decide whether there is a right to carry guns in public, a question left unanswered in its two most recent gun-related decisions.](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-usa-court-guns-idUSBREA1N12820140224) See also: > **[Supreme Court turns down challenge to N.Y. concealed-carry law](https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-xpm-2013-apr-15-la-na-court-guns-20130416-story.html)** > > Supreme Court turns down challenge to N.Y. concealed-carry law The sort of appellate judges who hate being overruled by the Supremes have no clue which way to go in a right to carry case. Maybe the Supremes don’t want to declare themselves on this, and will continue refusing to rule on the right to carry. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/118 "2014-03-12T23:54:53Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > To get back the OP: The US Constiution means what the Supreme Court says it means, and, on the right to bear arms, they’ve been silent. SCOTUS has been silent. The circuit courts have not. The 7th and 9th circuits have rulings already. The next case that is eligible for cert is Drake out of New Jersey. > [@](#): > > Isn’t this accurate: > > [The court has yet to decide whether there is a right to carry guns in public, a question left unanswered in its two most recent gun-related decisions.](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-usa-court-guns-idUSBREA1N12820140224) Yes, but these cert denials were not about carry so not really relevant. > [@](#): > > See also: > > [Supreme Court turns down challenge to N.Y. concealed-carry law](http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/15/nation/la-na-court-guns-20130416) This is out of date. The 9th has ruled (the subject of this thread). > [@](#): > > Maybe the Supremes don’t want to declare themselves on this, and will continue refusing to rule on the right to carry. Perhaps. Then the right to carry will be dependent on what federal jurisdiction a person lives in. That seems like a nonsensical outcome to me, but if SCOTUS doesn’t resolve the issue that would be the status quo. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/119 "2014-03-13T04:24:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > If the Second Amendment is repealed, you will no longer have the right to carry firearms. Kinda like if Congress repeals Newton’s Law nobody will get hurt or die from falls? The right to arms is not created, given, granted or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. The Supreme Court has been boringly consistent in affirming this for going on 140 years: [INDENT] **Supreme Court, 1876:** “The right . . . of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose” [that of self-defense from the KKK by ex-slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . .” **Supreme Court, 1886:**"the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . " **Supreme Court, 2008:**"it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” [/INDENT] Altering or removing words _upon which the right in no manner depends_ would do nothing to the right, which has always been possessed by the people. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/120 "2014-03-13T04:47:02Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > To get back the OP: The US Constiution means what the Supreme Court says it means, and, on the right to bear arms, they’ve been silent. I seem to remember a rather definitive statement in Heller: [INDENT] c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .” [/INDENT] The operative clause of the 2nd Amendment guarantees the individual right to “possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” and of course Cruikshank recognized the “right to bear arms for lawful purpose” as being the right to be armed for self defense against aggressors (the KKK) as being possessed by two former slaves, then citizens, in public, in 1870’s Louisiana. I find it interesting that you have missed that the canon of prenumbral rights philosophy recognizes the right to keep and bear arms as part of the “rational continuum” of liberty that doesn’t emanate from the specific enumerations of the Bill of Rights which are only the absolute bare minimum of rights possessed by the people. As SCOTUS said in 1992, continuing a substantial and important line of opinions that began with _Griswold_, affirming a right to privacy which encompasses reproductive and abortion rights: [INDENT] "Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U. S. Const., Amend. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized: [INDENT]“[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.” – Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) [/INDENT] [/INDENT] Yeah, silent they’ve been . . . [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278.md?page=7)