By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
A look at gun rulings so far
Placeholder Image

Editor, Manteca Bulletin,
On June 9, the US 9th Circuit Court en banc ruled that carrying a concealed weapon is constitutional to regulate. 
After reading the ruling, it became clear that this makes open carry with loaded weapons constitutional.  I think when this ruling gets to the US Supreme court, the ruling will fail.  Why can I say this without question?  Let’s look at several rulings.  In Heller v. DC 2008, the US Supreme court said that people can have guns (arms) and they can be ready for use.  In McDonald v. Chicago 2010, the 2nd amendment extended to states. This means that the right to bear arms is a personal right and states can’t infringe on this right. 
In a more recent ruling that made very little headlines; Massachusetts v. Caetano May 9, 2016, the Massachusetts Supreme Court unanimously upheld the verdict that carrying a Taser is a felony. The US Supreme Court, without hearing the case rejected this argument, unanimously rejected the argument.  J. Alito and J. Thomas went even further by writing a strong opinion against the MA court stating; the MA court affirmed their reasoning on the flimsiest of grounds.  The Justice’s also stated that some states are more interested in disarming their citizens than protecting them.  The Caetano ruling removes barriers to weaponry.  limits to clips, folding stocks, bullet buttons, and other features cannot be barred. 
Now let’s look at the recent 9th circuit’s ruling.  First the court used the history of the 2nd amendment to cite the laws allowing regulating fire arms.  The issue with this, is that every citation was for the reasons the 2nd amendment was put in the Constitution in the first place.  This is the same historical research that supported and brought about the Heller and McDonald decisions.  The 2nd amendment was and is still about one group being allowed to own weapons while a different group can’t have weapons.  Those with weapons persecuted those who were left defenseless because of the lack of weapons.  The 9th circuit court cited King James II, who was Catholic.  He ordered the Protestants’ to be dis-armed.  After James II was over thrown, the Protestant successor drafted the English Bill of Rights.  This is the precursor to the American 2nd amendment.  The other logic cited by the 9th circuit covered state rulings dealing with concealed weapons only.  Every state court case cited, supports the right to carry a loaded weapon in the open.  The history of the 2nd amendment, when compared to the logic citing of the 9th circuit’s ruling does not make sense.  If the founders wanted to regulate weapons, they could have been silent or state that weapons can be regulated.  The foundering Fathers said the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed”; while the 9th circuit court says “bearing arms can be infringed and regulated”.  These two philosophies conflict with each other.
With the events in Orlando, FL, we are seeing history being repeated all over again.  If we replace the 16th or 17th century Catholic or Protestant with the 21 century Islam, we see history repeat in our own time.  While not all Catholics or Protestants persecuted other people, some did.  Just as Islam has “a few” radicle extremist, the same scenario is played out. 
Our political leadership sears to defend the constitution from enemies, foreign or domestic.  I ask the local Liberals, at what point do we decide it is a war we are fighting?  ISIS has declared on the world.  When do we act accordingly?  The 2nd amendment is about keeping this country free.  Do we want a revolution where a few control the many?  Countries like Cuba, Iran, Vietnam, North Korea, Russia, China, and other countries that have become dictator ships in our life time.
In Caetano, the US Supreme court stated “The lower court’s ill treatment of Heller cannot stand. The reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense”.  Anti-2nd amendment people do not realize that somebody is going to try to control the government, steal from you, or try to kill you.  If they have a weapon and you don’t, you lose your country, property, or life.

Scott McComas