That I can recall, there are only two cases wherein the Supreme Court cited to foreign laws (Texas v. Lawrence and Roper). While I agree that it is inappropriate to do so, two cases does not constitute an agenda. You should also remember that the two new justices are more conservative and have already shifted the balance on the court.
A simple Google Search:
Second where is the case law that says your right to open carry is embodied in the Nineth Amendment. You want a declaration of a federal right from powers and rights that are implicitly given to the states? That doesn't make any sense. Only the federal government could potentially give a nation wide open carry because they have the jurisdiction. Your claim that it comes from the 9th amendment is simply a faulty legal argument. Going through the 9th Amendment means that the right to carry openly or not comes from the states. It seems clear that most states have created constitutionally or statutorily the right to own weapons and after going through a given process the right to carry concealed. The legal argument you offer is circular and again explains why the NRA was not interested in your case.
Our rights DO NOT COME FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOR THE STATES. They come from God. Our rights pre-existed the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution merely guarantees that the U.S. Government will not infringement upon our rights, that they are guaranteed that we can exercises our rights (and subsequent duties to protect those rights) from government trespass. The Bill of Rights are supposed to apply to the States as well but the Supreme Court has criminally seen fit to pick and chose which ones apply to the States. This is the Incorporation Doctrine.
Again the 9th Amendment can't give you a national right from a state power. Especially at open sea.
REPEAT: The Ninth Amendment DOES NOT GIVE RIGHTS! IT GUARANTEES OUR UNENUMERATED RIGHTS WILL NOT BE DISPARAGED.
How again is the Supreme Court criminally faulty? It doesn't make any sense. The Supreme Court deals with federal questions. Your own articles make clear that there has been no constitutional challenge based on the 2nd amendment to reach the Supreme Court since 1939. How is that criminal? How can you prove evil or mal intent. As a criminal prosecutor, to me, your claim of criminality is just a blatant attempt to place emotion into a weak argument. Maybe the answer is that there is no confusion at the state or circuit level to justify a Supreme Court answer. Maybe it is that most of us understand what the 2nd amendment means and you don't.
There have been countless constitutional challenges rising up through the Circuits. But the Supreme Courts denies all of them. That in itself is an Article III violation for every denial of a Second Amendment case.
Perhaps the reason that there is more 1st amendment clarification is because there have simply been more questions regarding the 1st than the 2nd.Bullcrap.
Perhaps the 2nd is so blatanlty clear that further clarification is unnecessary. The Constitution (by that I mean the rest of it) makes clear the the Court can choose its case load. Accusing the court for the last 50 years of being criminal doesn't mean you have a case of first impression that anyone is going to care about.
The wording of the Second Amendment may itself be problematic.
EMAIL I SENT TO THE AUTHOR JB Campbell, "Second Amendment 'Rights' Dead":
The clause, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." is meaningless and has always been meaningless, as Patrick Henry pointed out repeatedly after reading this deceptive Amendment, along with the equally deceptive clauses in Article One regarding the arming and leadership of the militia.
Can you provide the documentation for the Patrick Henry reference? I can use it in my Second Amendment case in the federal courts.
American Common Defence Review
THE REPLY FROM THE JB CAMPBELL:
The best source for Henry's opposition to the wording of the 2nd Amendment and to the militia clauses of Article 1, Section 8 are found in Patrick Henry, Patriot & Statesman, by Noreen Campbell Dickson. Published by Devin-Adair around 1970. I've heard D-A, which is not the same great house anymore, might be reprinting it, but you can probably find it online. It is really priceless.
Henry was totally opposed to the Constitution itself, as you will find in that book. The problem was that it was crafted by Freemasons and was based on Masonic lodge rules of procedure, secretly instead of modifying the Articles of Confederation as they were supposed to do. Henry called it a deception and a design for empire.
The amendment should simply have read, The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The well-regulated militia part was a limiter, which has been used ever since to disarm us because we or our arms didn't somehow fit with some judge's view of "the militia." We have the natural right to have guns for any purpose or for no purpose at all. That is, we have the natural right to defend ourselves, anytime, anywhere.
I decided to jam "the militia" up the government's ass in 1989 with my book, The New American Man - A Call to Arms. It started the modern miitia movement that year which lasted until the government responded with its massacre of federal employees and children at Oklahoma City in 1995. In the book I listed and summarized all the federal court decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment in the US Code Annotated, from 1840 to 1980. Not a one went our way. So obviously it is a waste of time to seek satisfaction in the courts. It's way too late for that. Besides, almost all the judges are themselves Freemasons, along with the attorneys and cops, so - where are we? Nowhere.
But the Henry book shows that at least one guy was on guard when the Constitution was being rammed down our throats in secret. He and a couple of other guys demanded a Bill of Rights to protect us from the Constitution, which the Masonic federalists claimed wasn't necessary. Can you imagine where we'd be now with just the first seven articles? Where is the check and balance on the Supreme Court? You can see how these ******** do business with the Reconstruction amendments, which weren't even ratified by the southern states. The Fourteenth Amendment made us all slaves, and forbade questioning the public debt! The Sixteenth was based on fraud and the Seventeenth abolished their original form of government, with the election of Senators. The states were no longer represented in the contract. The Eighteenth was madness, and led to the creation of organized crime. As I said, the rule of law is no more - we are under the rule of the gun.
Finally, (and I would add my last post on this particular thread), during the last 50 years with the bad case law has also come a great deal of good case law. I don't think anyone on this site would argue that allowing black children to go to the same schools as white children is bad. Providing for the equal treatment of all citizens under the 14th Amendment is also a good thing. Clarifiying criminal procedure and providing clear guildelines for police and prosecutors is a good thing. Making blatant generalizations about an enormous body of law of which I doubt you have read not only weakens your claims but makes it seem silly and a clear waste of time.
Okay, try this out for size. Civil Rights law! Segregation is bad thing. So, why segregate law-abiding gun owners from society with "Gun Free Zones"? Why discriminate against gun owners by coercing them into concealed carry just to appease the timid and faint of heart who are terrified by the sight of a gun? This is the same thing as the racist policy "separate but equal." Open Carry is a civil right.