Fifth Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenges to “Campus Carry”
Texas, like some other states, allows law-abiding adults who have concealed carry licenses to carry at public universities as well as elsewhere; this was challenged on First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Equal Protection Clause grounds.
As with anything Eugene Volokh writes, it is amazingly explanatory and it is a joy to see that the Fifth Circuit handed a legal spanking to the three Liberal Arts Professors from the University of Texas who brought the case to court. Believe it or not, the following was one of the arguments presented to the court:
Glass contends that to the extent the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to carry firearms, persons not carrying arms have a right to the practice being well-regulated.
Yeah, that dumb.
And as usual, you can read the original court decision here.
(Owed Hat Tip Goes Here)
None of the comments on the original article made this crucial point: when the 2nd Amendment was written, “well regulated” meant exactly “well-trained” when applied to a militia. NOT a militia with a bunch of “regulations” as we currently use the word. The next time anyone tells you that owning a gun is subject to regulation, please make this point. It is backed up by legal research spanning two centuries.
The militia, furthermore, meant all able-bodied men. They were expected to have appropriate arms, and to keep them themselves (not in the town armory). And the right to keep them and carry them was a right that could not be interfered with.
And why do so many people (including judges) ignore “shall not be infringed”?
“And why do so many people (including judges) ignore “shall not be infringed”?”
Because it would blow their narrative out of the water if serious Justice Thomas level jurisprudence was ever leveled on those words.
Mao was right about political power flowing from the barrel of a gun. TPTB have been flat scared peeing in their boots since William the Silent was assassinated with the aid of the then state of the art concealable flint ignition guns.
The idea that the unwashed could have unfettered access to guns has got to be constantly nagging them.
The other, and even more important, point about the wording of the 2nd Amendment is that the first half is a justification — not a limitation. Neal Schulman has written about this very nicely.
Try it this way “A well informed people being critical to a functioning democracy, the right of the people to print and own books shall not be infringed”. That doesn’t mean “only books about elections, or about politics, are protected by the Constitution”. It simply means “books are protected because — among many other things — they are important to democracy.
[…] read Miguel’s post Fifth Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenges to “Campus Carry” and the Reason article it quotes and I thought I’d throw in my two […]