Supreme Court asked to recognize a Second Amendment right to sell guns

I live in Alameda County California. It encompasses over 13 cities. Anyway, now we have the issue of selling guns. This person has to go all the way to the Supreme Court to assert his rights. I am so ashamed of CA. We are the state that refuses to go along with the constitution the most. Put aside it is guns. Think rather that it is private property. If they can ban gun sales, they can ban sales of can openers, electric saws, tools to maintain trees and much more. A gun is property. And how can a state stop us from owning guns when the constitution encourages gun ownership?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...wOFdCaXE3VmttTjEyYis4aGdYXC9UVG40aVJPTjZjIn0=

 

Interesting argument, Robert. Let's see what SCOTUS says.

 

Once again, the 9th will be overturned. Obvious activist judges should be removed.

 

Loved this. First, there was contempt at state freedoms (aren't you fellows supposed to celebrate it?). Second, the reference to tools to maintain trees was gold dust. Be a tad more cerebral in future mind you!

 

My state is very gifted at removing rights.

 

I agree

 

The high court takes 1 to 2 percent of cases a year. This will likely not even make the cut

 

To block a store from the location based on the property sold needs to go to the Supreme Court. If CA gets away with this all states can.

 

Its a zoning issue. SCOTUS will never even see it

 

Particularly in the 4th and 6th.

 

I can't find the story, but didn't Chicago do the same thing and was shot down by a federal court?

 

I’m not familiar with this case. But from reading this thread so far, how is this different than state liquor laws, or zoning laws restricting say, strip clubs?

 

It is different in the sense that firearms are actually mentioned in the constitution, and their ownership is protected by it. If it is constitutional to own firearms, it must be constitutional to sell them as well.

 

Well, firearms actually aren’t mentioned in the constitution. Just arms.

But I still don’t see how this is different. Yo have a constitutional right to consume alcohol. Why can states limit where it is sold? Firearms are no different. You are still free to own, buy or sell firearms in that state. They just limit where you can buy from a dealer.

 

Incorrect. There is no constitutional right to consume alcoholic beverages.

 

Of course there is. 18th amendment repealed.

 

That merely affirms that the federal government has no Constitutional power to ban alcohol manufacture, sale or consumption.

 

And the 14th incorporates that to the states. So, you have a constitutional right to consume alcohol.

 

Then why are there all of these dry states, counties and cities?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state

 

No State is dry. There are restrictions on where you can BUY alcohol. There is no restriction against consuming alcohol. (In the privacy of ones own home. There are restrictions against consuming in public)

 

Did you read the article? Three states are dry be default. Also:

Alaska

• State law allows each village to decide on restrictions, and some boroughs may prohibit it altogether.[55]

Three terms describe Alaskan villages in common usage:

• A "dry village" bans both the sale and possession of alcohol.

 

No state is dry. Are these villages part of a reservation?

 

"Three states, Kansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee, are entirely dry by default: counties specifically must authorize the sale of alcohol in order for it to be legal and subject to state liquor control laws."

No, they are not.

 

You can drink in all 50 states. Lol

Can you post the statutes?

 

You sure can't, underage consumption of Alcohol and Acohol products is verboten !
Actung !