All opinion articles are the opinion of the author and not necessarily of American Military News. If you are interested in submitting an op-ed please email [email protected]
Latest posts by CDR LE (Ret.) Chris Wagoner (see all)
- Op-ed: Do Good Guys with Guns Stop Bad Guys with Guns? - November 16, 2016
- Op-ed: Gun Enthusiasts Will Pay For This Election Regardless Of Who Wins - October 20, 2016
- Op-ed: New Gun Laws Create Hundreds of Thousands of New Felons - October 13, 2016
The 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court ruling earlier this month shows just how out of touch our judicial system has become from what it was designed to do. Appeals Courts are to hear lower court rulings and weigh in on the Constitutionality of the lower courts actions. But how are they supposed to do this if they do not know, or obviously have forgotten what the Constitution says?
The ruling hurt law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves from those that do not follow the laws anyway. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a California law that requires showing a county sheriff “good cause” in order to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. As a practical matter, the law makes it difficult for most people to get a permit in California’s urban areas.
The court said they looked at the history of gun laws since pre-colonial times, and held that “the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public.” No kidding? You’re right it does not say anywhere in the 2nd Amendment that you can carry concealed. But it does say “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
And typically in contracts, when something is omitted, it means it is permissible otherwise something preventing the omitted action would be written in.
What part of “Shall not be infringed” did the supposed well educated Judges not get? The entire argument is moot if they would simply stick to the language of the 2nd Amendment as it was written, and still stands today! Am I saying that people should be allowed to buy any weapon they want? Well of course not, A-10 Warthogs, F-18’s, 155mm Artillery and such should be restricted to the military. But besides obviously military only weapons, the restrictions are doing nothing to reduce crime or save lives.
Should the average citizen be able to buy a machine gun? Why not? What does a law abiding citizen do with a machine gun? They have fun shooting it (when they can afford the ammo) and many people already own machine guns. It is not illegal to own them if you pay the Government a “tax” and get the purchase approved. You may want to ask ATF how many of those permits there are out there. You may be surprised at how many already own machine guns.
So why did the court rule this way? Because they do not like guns and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not impartial, it is political. There are bad things that kill people and if people could not get them the killings would stop or go down.
Have they not read anything about mass shootings? Maybe they should educate themselves a little before making themselves look foolish. We banned “assault weapons” (real name of that law was actually: Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act ) for 10 years or so, and guess what – nothing stopped criminals from getting guns, and killing people. The FBI even did a study on it called “A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013” and during the ban there were 26 mass shootings! 73 people killed and 77 wounded! That’s during the last ban! These gun bans do not stop anything.
So you ask ‘Ok smarty pants, what do you suggest?’ Well I suggest we stop taking rights away from the good guys and doing nothing to the bad guys. One thing I learned in my 35+ years as a cop in Florida is that our judicial system needs a revamping of penalties and what crimes get what sentences.
How about enforcing the laws we already have (since these acts are already against the law) and making the penalties stiffer? How about if you use a gun in a crime where anyone is hurt and you do 25 years minimum?! How about we allow people to carry firearms on their person everywhere they go but a few very limited locations? (I can understand police departments, court houses and a few others). There are some common sense things that could be done, but since when does our government ever look at common sense approaches to anything?