DEAR GUN OWNERS: Do You TRUST Trump Or Clinton With The FATE of the 2nd Amendment?

This election will come down to two candidates with completely opposite views — who will you decide when the fate of the Second Amendment is at stake?

If you don’t believe that your right to bear arms is really at stake, take a look at what just happened in California:

Whether Americans will continue to have a Second Amendment right to own guns now depends on whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton wins the White House.

The Supreme Court will soon have an opportunity to review a federal appeals court’s decision Thursday that the government can ban all concealed firearms outside the home.

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit summarized this case, Peruta v. County of San Diego:

Under California law, a member of the general public may not carry a concealed weapon in public unless he or she has been issued a license. An applicant for a license must satisfy a number of conditions. Among other things, the applicant must show “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. The sheriffs of San Diego and Yolo Counties published policies defining good cause as requiring a particularized reason why an applicant needs a concealed firearm for self-defense.

In other words, California residents  must explain that they have some special need beyond a general desire for self-defense, such as having an abusive ex-husband or having received a death threat.

The plaintiffs here filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the Second Amendment entitles them to carry a firearm outside their home. They did not argue one way or the other whether the state can require them to get a license, or whether they can carry openly instead of concealed.

Four judges vigorously dissented, in three separate opinions. Writing the principal dissent, Judge Consuelo Callahan wrote, “The Second Amendment is not a ‘second-class’ amendment.” She quoted Heller, where Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the High Court:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of the Supreme Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

She then added, “Today the majority takes a step toward extinguishing the Second Amendment right recognized by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald.”

If the Supreme Court were to take Peruta, it would have the option of either reaffirmingHeller, or overruling it. The Court is divided 4-4 on that issue right now, and the future of the Second Amendment will thus be determined by whoever fills the seat left vacant by Scalia’s death.

Donald Trump has already put forth a list of eleven potential Supreme Court justices, each of whom is a conservative expected to support — or even expand — Heller.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has mentioned Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an ideal justice. Ginsburg has twice dissented from Second Amendment rights, arguing that private citizens cannot claim a right to bear arms.

Read more: Breitbart

Share if you want to KEEP your rights

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a comment

Please disable your Ad Blocker to leave a comment.

Trending Now on Clash Daily