Last week, The Los Angeles Times penned an editorial slamming the Supreme Court for numerous court decisions that protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense (emphasis mine):
The Supreme Court ruled a decade ago — and for the first time — that the 2nd Amendment grants individuals the right to keep firearms in their homes for personal protection. It was the wrong decision; courts until then operated under the belief that the 2nd Amendment was framed with state militias in mind. But joined by four conservative colleagues, Justice Antonin Scalia found in the District of Columbia vs. Heller that the Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, albeit not without limits.
Why was this the wrong decision? What good is having a firearm if you can't carry it on your person. You're more likely to need it outside of your home than when you're there.
Gun control advocates are quick to say they're not trying to take away our guns, but then you see editorials like this. They say they want "responsible gun ownership" or "limits" on what we can and cannot possess. The Supreme Court's decision was very cut and dry: "the Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, albeit not without limits."
There are limits on the Second Amendment. Gun owners aren't allowed to own anything and everything they please. If this was the wrong decision, then what's the right decision? Outright banning of firearms?
Now a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in a case from Hawaii that the logic of the Heller decision also should apply to people who want to carry a firearm openly in public for self-protection. The panel’s decision is just as wrong as the Heller case it is built upon, and if it stands, it will make the nation a more dangerous place.
The heart of the decision is the belief that the 2nd Amendment, as interpreted in Heller, grants a right to keep (as in own) and to bear (as in carry) arms for self-protection in both the home and in public, where the danger of life-threatening interactions also exists. In other words, the need for self-protection, and thus for a firearm, doesn’t stop at the front door.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board needs a dose of reality. The world isn't any less safe because people are open carrying instead of carrying concealed. The difference is that strangers around them can see the gun. The world isn't suddenly more dangerous. More guns aren't on the street. It just means more guns can be seen to the naked eye.
This type of fear-mongering is why people are so afraid of firearms and why Americans no longer respect the Second Amendment. The lack of knowledge, combined with the voices of authority, like The Los Angeles Times editorial board, saying firearms are bad is why gun rights have become such a divisive issue in America.
Anti-gunners are doing everything in their power to prepare for Judge Kavannaugh to be appointed to the Supreme Court because they know that they're bound to lose. They know that a Kavannaugh appointment means SCOTUS will hear more gun cases and that the Second Amendment will prevail.