9th Circuit Rules There’s No Constitutional Right to Sell Firearms...

[Chris]

It might help to point out that the OP is concerned with a second opinion by the court in the case. A first opinion clarifies what courts understand infirnge to mean:

Writing for the majority, Judge Marsha Berzon easily dismissed the plaintiffs’ first argument—that Alameda County had infringed upon the rights of prospective gun buyers by refusing to grant the plaintiffs a permit. Alameda County, she explained, already contains at least 10 gun shops, including a Big 5 Sporting Goods store that’s just 600 feet from the plaintiffs’ planned retail establishment. “Gun buyers have no right to have a gun store in a particular location,” Berzon wrote, as long as “their access is not meaningfully constrained.”

That is a narrow ruling on a particular permit for a new gun shop that doesn't constrain the aboility ot obtain guns in other shops.

That I have less argument with, I could understand you might not want a gun shop to open across from an elementary school for example.

It's the second broad opinion that, as an end around, does constrain obtaining guns.

[Crepitus]

If we cannot purchase arms then we cannot keep and bear them. It does, therefore, infringe on our right. That we could make arms doesn't lessen the infringement.

There are 300 million guns in this country. Not being able to purchase a new one isn't an infringement of your rights any more than not being able to afford a one new is.

As far as "an end run around the Constitution" as someone posted the whole current interpretation of the second amendment is that already due to ignoring the whole "well regulated militia" thing.

[stjames1_53]

How is it an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, in your opinion?

If you have the Right to own, how are you supposed to get them? Issued from the government? Then it takes the Right and converts it to a privilege bestowed upon a few select. That is a direct affect of government controlling the people.

[Ethereal]

How is it an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, in your opinion?

The same way banning the selling of books would be an infringement on the right to free speech.

[stjames1_53]

this ruling comes for the 9th circuit court. What did you expect? They've been trying to create a country run by communists. It's time to abolish the 9th and rebuild into several other courts

[Ethereal]

There are 300 million guns in this country. Not being able to purchase a new one isn't an infringement of your rights any more than not being able to afford a one new is.

As far as "an end run around the Constitution" as someone posted the whole current interpretation of the second amendment is that already due to ignoring the whole "well regulated militia" thing.

There are lots of books in America, too. Does that mean banning the sale of books isn't an infringement of free speech rights?

[Common Sense]

People love to be strict absolutists on the 2nd. They love to quote the second and specifically "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see anything in there about selling. Keep, yes. Bear, yes. Sell, no.

[Ethereal]

People love to be strict absolutists on the 2nd. They love to quote the second and specifically "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see anything in there about selling. Keep, yes. Bear, yes. Sell, no.

The right to manufacture and distribute arms is a necessary prerequisite to the ability to keep and bear them. The concept of liberty, upon which this country was ostensibly founded and the US government established, necessarily implies certain things about those rights. It's really not that difficult to comprehend unless you have an agenda of some sort.

[Ethereal]

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Ethereal]

...specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
--Griswold v. Connecticut