To summarize, you can’t insist that the constitution includes a right to access to one form of protection (contraceptives) while insisting that you may prohibit access to another form of protection (the tools needed to exercise a Second Amendment right to self-defense).
(Publiusforum.com) The Ninth Circuit Court remanded the case of Teixeira v. County of Alameda back to a lower court informing it the court that the Second Amendment and its history protects the rights of Americans to self-defense including the “right to acquire weapons” as well as own them.
This puts a dent in the city of Alameda’s regulations that practically bans the opening of any gun store in the city.
As 9th Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain explained, “The historical record indicates that Americans continued to believe that such right included the freedom to purchase and to sell weapons. In 1793, Thomas Jefferson noted that ‘[o]ur citizens have always been free to make, vend, and export arms. It is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them.’”
I like this bit in particular,
If “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is to have any force, the people must have a right to acquire the very firearms they are entitled to keep and to bear. Indeed, where a right depends on subsidiary activity, it would make little sense if the right did not extend, at least partly, to such activity as well. The Supreme Court recognized this principle in very different contexts [citing cases involving the right to use contraceptives and the First Amendment].
And no, I am not agreeing that the Constitution includes a right to contraceptives. It does not. I’m just using their narrative to construct a cruel irony; the rabid-left and its culture warriors laid the ground work for a decision that prohibits a state or municipality from passing laws that make it impossible to open or operate a gun store.
Safe sex helps to secure the Second Amendment. Who saw that coming? Certainly not the Democrats.
