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

[Chris]

This sidestep by the 9th is so clearly an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms it's appalling. But Heller opened the door.

9th Circuit Rules There’s No Constitutional Right to Sell Firearms. Will the Supreme Court Care?

Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to sell firearms to the public? No, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, a landmark decision affirming the government’s constitutional authority to strictly regulate gun shops. The 9–2 ruling is a victory for gun safety advocates who feared judicial aggrandizement of the right to bear arms could invalidate myriad laws governing firearm commerce. The decision may be imperiled, however, if the plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court, where conservative justices are increasingly eager to expand the scope of the Second Amendment.

...Berzon then turned to the plaintiffs’ more substantial argument: whether the Second Amendment confers a right to sell firearms. She began by quoting D.C. v. Heller, the 2008 decision establishing an individual right to bear arms, which stated: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on … laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” which are “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” That passage alone, Berzon writes, strongly suggests that retailers cannot “assert an independent, freestanding right to sell firearms under the Second Amendment.”

[Green Arrow]

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

[Chris]

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

If the government outlaws selling arms then that would definitely infringe on our right to keep and bear them.

[Private Pickle]

It's in California which makes this unsurprising. If it goes to SCOTUS it will be overturned.

[Green Arrow]

If the government outlaws selling arms then that would definitely infringe on our right to keep and bear them.

So would my inability to afford arms. Should the government buy them for me?

[Chris]

So would my inability to afford arms. Should the government buy them for me?

Your inability to afford something is not infringement by government legislation. The second protects our right from government infringement.

[Chris]

It's in California which makes this unsurprising. If it goes to SCOTUS it will be overturned.

Granted, it is CA and the 9th.

[Green Arrow]

Your inability to afford something is not infringement by government legislation. The second protects our right from government infringement.

The right it protects is to "keep" and "bear," not "buy" or "sell." Banning the sale of firearms doesn't infringe on your right to keep and bear, there are tons of DIY videos on YouTube that show you how to make your own firearms.

[Captdon]

This sidestep by the 9th is so clearly an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms it's appalling. But Heller opened the door.

9th Circuit Rules There’s No Constitutional Right to Sell Firearms. Will the Supreme Court Care?

It's an end run around the Second Amendment. The Supreme Ccourt never allows that. DC and Chicago have learned that lesson.Can't outlaw ammunition for legal arms.Can't out wit the constitution.

[Captdon]

So would my inability to afford arms. Should the government buy them for me?

You're deflecting, the usual liberal response. If you can't buy then you can't own a working gun. That's stupid. As a liberal, you should be saying the government does have to buy you a gun. If health insurance is a right, and it isn't, then this is a right. It's actually written in the Constitution.