Could the 9th be used to defend the 2nd in reguards to...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cluster Bomb

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
298
Location
Maine
State laws, companies policies (signs, or other), and anti gun right lobbyist? no matter their opinion of the 2nd it can not be removed, denied or disparaged as noted in the 9th. I guess no man is created equal, so lets chain the slaves back up too...?
 
Cluster Bomb said:
Could the 9th be used to defend the 2nd in reguards to...

State laws, companies policies (signs, or other), and anti gun right lobbyist?...
Not sure exactly what your point is or how you believe that the Ninth Amendment can be effectively used here.

[1] There's a good deal of litigation going on right now attacking various state gun control laws. The foundations of that litigation are primarily the core Supreme Court ruling in Heller and the Supreme Court's ruling in McDonald applying the Second Amendment to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. We have some extremely able lawyers working on this, including Alan Gura who represented our interests to the favorable results in Heller and McDonald. He knows what he is doing.

[2] As far as using the Ninth Amendment to attack anti-gun policies of private business, that is a complete nonstarter. The Constitution does not apply to or regulate the conduct of private parties. As explained by the United States Supreme Court (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991), emphasis added):
....The Constitution structures the National Government, confines its actions, and, in regard to certain individual liberties and other specified matters, confines the actions of the States. With a few exceptions, such as the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment, constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection do not apply to the actions of private entities. Tarkanian, supra, 488 U.S., at 191, 109 S.Ct., at 461; Flagg Bros, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1733, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). This fundamental limitation on the scope of constitutional guarantees "preserves an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law" and "avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936-937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). One great object of the Constitution is to permit citizens to structure their private relations as they choose subject only to the constraints of statutory or decisional law. ....

[3] As far as reining in anti-gun lobbyists, lobbying and political advocacy is pretty much protected under the First Amendment.

But maybe I'm not understanding your thinking. Could you perhaps elaborate?
 
Could the 9th be used to defend the 2nd in regards to State laws, companies policies (signs, or other), and anti gun right lobbyist? no matter their opinion of the 2nd it can not be removed, denied or disparaged as noted in the 9th.

No. This is an extreme libertarian view of the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment limits only the federal government.

If you would like to learn more about the Ninth Amendment, Professor Kurt Lash wrote a paper which contrasts the libertarian and federalist views of the amendment. Or, you might prefer to watch his presentation on the 9th and 10th Amendments:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
 
Can the 9th Amendment be used to enforce the provisions of the 2nd against State laws, company policies and anti-gun lobbyists

The 9th Amendment was put in the Constitution as a recognition that the enumeration of certain rights was not a green flag for the Government to walk all over every other area of people's lives. It was not supposed to be an enforcement mechanism for those rights actually listed. So the short answer to your question is no.

Going one step further, my reading of the 2nd Amendment is actually rather limited. I think that an individual RKBA was recognized, but for the purposes of maintaining an armed citizenry capable of repelling invasion and suppressing insurrections. In this vein, the 2A may not in fact protect your right to carry at large, or even your right to self-defense, or to hunt (yes I'm aware the Supreme Court disagree's with me). Perhaps in theory a State could pass a law banning all firearm use except for target practice and drill, and still be in line with the 2nd amendment. Would I support this law? Never. Maybe I'll change my mind one day and learn something new, perhaps from that recent discussion on what exactly the 2A covers, but that's not the purpose of this thread.

If we accept that limited view of the 2A, does that mean I don't think an individual has the right to defend themselves, or to hunt meat for their families, or even just for sport? Am I saying that the first 8 Amendments to our Constitution outline every right that we have? Heck no. That's why we have the 9th Amendment - just because something isn't covered by some Constitutional provision doesn't mean that that right doesn't exist.

Now the problem is whose to say what the 9th Amendment protects. I say it covers self defense and hunting (and much much more of course). Other people say it protects a woman's right to have an abortion. I disagree with those who think it covers abortion, and many of them likely disagree with me that it covers self defense.

Despite having gone off topic a bit, I'll conclude by noting that liberals aren't buying this idea that every gun right and use is covered by the 2nd Amendment. Maybe we should start using the 9th Amendment back at them, saying that even if it doesn't, our most fundamental and inalienable rights still deserve protection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top