“The panel acknowledged that while the concealed carry of firearms categorically falls outside Second Amendment protection, see Peruta v. County of San Diego, it was satisfied that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to carry a firearm openly in public for self-defense. Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the County’s and the State’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home. The panel stated that once identified as an individual right focused on self-defense, the right to bear arms must guarantee some right to self-defense in public.”
See U.S. Appeals Court: Second Amendment Protects Right To Carry Gun In Public For Self-DefenseI have three things to say about this ruling. It is nonsensical. Put it to these three tests:
- 30000 gun-toting football fans go into a stadium to watch a game. A gun-fight breaks out. If thousands have the right to protect themselves with a firearm in public and folks in the vicinity of the gun-fight see firearms “pointed at me” and hear shots, what’s to prevent a chain-reaction gun-fight involving thousands of rounds fired and hundreds of casualties? Where is the public’s right to be protected from gun-toting idiots? The second amendment is about protecting the public too, not just individuals.
- If Joe starts openly carrying and all of Joe’s neighbours know of Joe’s ill temper, they may all start to openly carry. Further, the neighbours, co-workers, associates and random folks randomly encountering the neighbours may all decide to go about armed. Now, what prevents the situation in (1) happening in smaller measure in any public place, replacing road-rage, “going postal”, and all kinds of misunderstandings resulting in all kinds of “friendly fire” incidents. How are individual members of the public to know whether someone firing a shot in the vicinity is a good guy defending himself or an attacker against whom he/she must defend?
- Suppose, on an individual level, two individuals who actually hate/mistrust/despise each other, are packing heat and take the matter to another level instead of yelling, pushing or throwing punches? Who with a minimal understanding of people cannot understand that implementing this ruling will increase lethal violence? What happened to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Don’t those matter at all? Isn’t it clear that in a complex society no right can be unlimited and for many good reasons carrying firearms in public is not a good idea? You don’t yell “FIRE!” in a movie theatre unless there is a fire, despite freedom of speech. You don’t allow everyone and his stupid uncle to carry firearms in public despite the second amendment.
On the other hand with all the people hating Trump, if millions are allowed to carry in public and go to Trump’s spectacles, one of them may just be inspired to put an end to his nominating rabid second amendment types to the Supreme Court. There could be a silver lining despite the high body-count. I presume bad guys will be killed off in higher proportion to good guys assuming all bad guys will pack and not all good guys will… Wait, that’s an uncivil war as standard operating procedure…
Can this actually be happening in USA? Second Amendment chain reaction destroying all public peace/safety? What are the chances that SCOTUS, stocked by Trump’s NRA-loving judges will actually agree to this nonsense? Let’s hope someone at SCOTUS actually wakes up when they consider this matter.