Thursday, July 19, 2007

Infringed?

A New Hampshire man had his concealed carry permit revoked because of an incident in which he used his revolver to illustrate a story. He challenged this revocation of his rights, and the State Supreme Court decided that this was not infringement.
Courts have tended to apply strict scrutiny when courts have deemed legislation "immediately suspect," she wrote. "Gun control legislation, by contrast, 'with its legislative motivation of public safety . . . is not inherently suspicious,' " Dalianis wrote, citing a University of California-Los Angeles study on strict scrutiny cases.
Gun control should be inherently suspicious. It violates God-given rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Censorship, religious laws, and unwarranted searches are all suspect by nature...why shouldn't any other infringement be, as well.

Also, they claim that the man's rights are still intact because he can still carry openly and own guns. He can't legally open carry anywhere outside of walking distance, since a loaded firearm inside a vehicle is illegal without a concealed carry permit in New Hampshire. And we've seen what happens if he handles the gun in public, so he can't really get out of the car and load his gun.

"Shall not be infringed." The permit requirement is already infringement. Taking it away is worse.

Hat tip to The War on Guns.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I'm thinking you need to be put to bed.