Federal Court Rules Against the 2nd Amendment

Via Inforwars:
The ruling upholds a California law that imposes strict rules on individuals who wish to exercise concealed carry. The California law requires applicants to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a weapon.

The ruling strikes down previous decision. In 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Peruta v. County of San Diego that the right to carry a firearm is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

“Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment—whatever the scope of that protection may be—simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public,” the ruling written by Judge William A. Fletcher declares.

A dissent by Circuit Judge Maria Callahan warns the ruling will have detrimental impact on the Constitution.

“Constitutional rights would become meaningless if states could obliterate them by enacting incrementally more burdensome restrictions while arguing that a reviewing court must evaluate each restriction by itself when determining its constitutionality,” Callahan wrote.

The decision establishes a precedent for future challenges to the right to concealed carry and will embolden efforts by the government to dilute and eventually render the Second Amendment meaningless.

Ben Shapiro, writing for the Daily Wire, argues “incrementalism is the explicit goal of the left. Of course Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will never say they want to ban all firearms. Instead, they’ll just destroy the right to bear arms piecemeal: they’ll say that you have no right to open carry, you have no right to concealed carry, and you have no right to have guns in the home.”

“This is how the Constitution is rendered meaningless: not in one giant full-frontal assault, but day by day, case by case. This is also why the Second Amendment matters. The government that can carve away your gun rights can carve away all the other ones, too,” he warns.