search
top

No Right to Sell Arms

The 9th Circuit sitting en-banc has ruled there’s no particular Second Amendment right to sell guns. So that means you can own one, but the government doesn’t have to let anyone sell it to you. At least one judge dissented from the facial challenge, and another concurred on the facial challenge but “dissented from the dismissal of the constitutional challenge as applied to plaintiffs, stating that the majority‚Äôs analysis of the Second Amendment challenge to locating a full-service gun shop in an unincorporated area of Alameda County substantially interfered with the right of its customers to keep and bear arms.”

If there’s a right to bear arms, there has to be a right to sell them. That’s like arguing for freedom of the press, but it’s illegal for anyone to sell presses. They’d never accept that in a First Amendment context.

The courts will continue to read the Second Amendment into meaninglessness unless the Supreme Court steps in to stop them.

8 Responses to “No Right to Sell Arms”

  1. Ian Argent says:

    Saw an analysis of the DC en banc decision being unanimously NO (including the judge who dissented on the circuit decision) as a plea to SCOTUS to speak to the issue again.

  2. Joseph says:

    You have the right to Freedom of Speech, but can’t engage in the act of speeking. You have a Right to Trial by Jury, but the police and judges can overrule them at will.

    This ruling is Marxist-Socialism/Leninism, outright! To paraphrase Lenin and Trotsky, ‘Crush the liberty and free-agency of the individual by ECONOMICALLY STARVING IT TO DEATH’.

  3. Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

    Another court fails to do its job. Its actually more surprising when they do their job than when they don’t.

  4. Azzy says:

    Didn’t they try this with the marijuana stamp years ago and it got shot down?

  5. great unknown says:

    Compare and contrast: any restriction on abortion clinics – such as their needing hospital admitting privileges in case something goes wrong – is immediately struck down, at all levels including SCOTUS. Because the right to abortion [I forget what amendment that’s in] requires the free and unfettered availability of abortion.

    On the other hand, this is the Ninth Circus, which has, on a good day no more than three justices who are honest, and actually follow the Constitution. I noticed that Judge Kozinski was not on the panel.

    Also note the diametrically opposite opinion by the 7th Circuit in Ezell v City of Chicago this January.

  6. Sigivald says:

    I’ve seen people say “let them own guns but charge $500 per bullet lulz!!!” as if it was a serious policy position and not masturbation.

    So, hardly difficult to believe, even from Judges – I mean, it’s not like I respect them as a group, from too much exposure to them.

    (I hope Ian’s right.)

    • Ian Argent says:

      SCOTUS has given insufficient guidance to the lower courts, and let them run and play. No judge wants to be caught it when they get around to taking another case.

  7. Richard says:

    It is going to take two more good appointments to the Supreme Court to get them to do their job. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are already with us. Kagan, Sotomeyer and Roberts are relatively young and unlikely to go away soon. Kennedy who may retire would be one. Ginsburg is going to have to be carried out but that would seem a possibility. Breyer would be possible but he is not going voluntarily and is not known to be in poor health. It would take two of the three though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top