This is prime example of the levels the government and the courts will go to read their bias and ideology into the laws. They restrict freedoms because the Bill of Rights is phrased more broadly than they can handle. They fear, of all travesties, that they might have to actually trust people instead of dictating every human behavior. Thus they expand their power by reading into the Constitution all manner of restrictions and provisions that are no where to be read so that they can keep all the peons in check.
The 4th and 2nd Amendments are both assaulted in this absurd ruling:
2nd Amendment (2A for short)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
4th Amendment (4A for short)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable clause, supported by Oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The 2A says that I have a right to bear, not bare, arms. Bear is defined as carrying or transporting. Bare is uncovered or naked. We have a right to
carry arms upon our person, but the method is not prescribed. However, the tagline at the end is very important: "shall not be infringed." Notice that in this amendment the founders used the term infringed, not violated. They didn't mince words, infringe means acting to limit or undermine, and it's exactly the kind of behavior they intended to stop.
Since the manner of bearing, and type of arms is not defined, and the right cannot be limited or undermined, then the government has no business telling me what I can carry or how I can carry it. To do either would be placing further limitations, which is prohibited, upon my right. It is up to the individual to decide what weapon they feel is needed for their defense, and what method of carry is prudent for their given circumstances.
The 4A comes into play as reinforcements. It's first clause states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated..." It affirms that we have a right to be secure in our person, and all our property. We have a right to keep others from taking our stuff, and a right to hide our stuff from others view and knowledge. If that wasn't the case why would we have to be protected from searches and seizures? You don't search for what is plainly in sight, and you don't seize what is readily available for your taking.
Thus the 4A reaffirms the 2A and adds to it. Not only can the government not tell me what weaponry I can and can't carry, they can't tell me how I may or may not carry it (don't be a fool, I'm not talking about waving it around like a lunatic), and they don't even have a right know if I'm carrying, or that I have anything at all upon me, in my car, my bag, or at home. Yes it is the 4th amendment that that would be violated if the government were to register guns.
The Tenth Circuits ruling that the 2A doesn't cover concealed carry is as absurd as if the court had ruled that "because the 4A specifies houses and not domiciles in general, the right doesn't apply to all those living in apartments and condos, so the police can search those without warrants any time they like." This is the kind of logic we face whenever the subject turns to guns. Instead of applying the law as it is clearly intended to mean, they read what they want to read, and claim our rights are not violated because we can still own a gun.
It isn't about just owning guns, the 2A clearly states keeping, and bearing them. Any law that undermines or limits either is unconstitutional. Any ruling that does the same should see the judges impeached, removed from their benches, and the ruling thrown out.
Keep your eye, and prayers, on this one, as this could be a back door to some seriously aggressive anti gun rulings from the courts. The regime knows they have little chance of getting gun legislation through Congress, but the courts, that's a different matter entirely, as we have already seen with Obamacare.