Skip to main content
  1. News
  2. Politics
  3. Policy & Issues

States that provide NO explicit RKBA constitutional protections

See also

It has long been this writer’s contention that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the 2nd Amendment applies to all states and in particular to those states whose constitutions do not explicitly provide such protection. The writers reasoning was that any governmental unit that joined the United States accepted the entire United States Constitution - including the 2nd Amendment.

It appears that the Ninth Circuit Federal Appeals agrees with the writer. See opinion: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion yesterday stating that the state of California was wrong to require applicants to show good cause to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote for the majority: “The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,.

Any requirement to “show good cause” is a license for law enforcement to deny a right!
In its opening statement, the court states: “We are called upon to decide whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”

Why does the court refer to the 2nd amendment? It is likely because the constitution of the State of California does not provide constitutional protections for keeping and bearing arms.

The writer anticipates that this seemingly well-reasoned opinion will have an impact in the states of New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Minnesota (perhaps DC too); none of which (like California) have an explicit RKBA in their constitutions!

Advertisement