Or perhaps to protect themselves from wolves and bears and crazies as they traversed through the frontier?? Like duh....
Of course the Second Amendment extends beyond the four walls of an individual’s home. Do these DemoQuacks and libtards who seek to limit gun rights also propose that the right to free speech is limited to the confines of the home.
Of course it does. To BEAR arms means to CARRY them.
Aside from which, it is obvious that to BEAR arms means something different from KEEPING them, or the word would never have been included in the Second Amendment.
And the Bill of Rights was not instituted to protect the rights of state militias. It was instituted to protect the rights of individual Americans.
The people have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to both KEEP and CARRY weapons, for defense of their God-given right to go on living, and for other all other legitimate purposes.
Posner is a gem. Of course, to some, he’s not conservative enough . . . .
Keep and bear arms. Keep = in the home. Bear=outside the home.
It applies outside my home. We both have carry permits and we carry!
Preach it, Brother.
Although it's in another jurisdiction, will this have any effect on the ongoing shall-issue CC lawsuit in Maryland?
considering the state of Kalifornia entices Mexican illegal gang thugs into the state as a sanctuary as well as using tax payer money to pay for their up keep, it’s past time for the restrictive anti gun laws of Kalifornia to be challenged. Common sense exposes that the anti gun laws in Kalifornia (Di Freakinstein) as well as many other states are predominantly meant to keep some law abiding American loving patriot from using one on the corrupt politicians who are hell bent on taking the liberty from all but the corrupt and criminal.
Posner is definitely an interesting judge. Sometimes he mystifies me, but other times he seems to decide a case just as I would, and does a superlative job of backing up the opinion.
The ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to secure the liberty of people against the tyranny of government.
And that scares the bejesus out of liberals, because they want no impediments (like armed citizens) to their totalitarian leftism.
I don't see muggers, ex-husbands, or burglars in there anywhere.
What I do see is that "a free State" is what is being defended by the 2nd Amendment.
And we protect that freedom not from muggers, but against usurpation of freedom by governments. The whole Bill of Rights is about securing people's rights AGAINST government.
So, while I agree with the good Judge's outcome, I disagree with his logic. We aren't protecting ourselves from muggers. We're protecting ourselves from excessively self-aggrandizing judges (and legislators and executives)!
Finally some good news for a change.
This was a two to one decision. The actual decision is 21 pages. Judge Williams’ dissent was 24 pages and looks like a dissertation with the usual creative writing expected from from the Brady Campaign.
For those interested in reading it, the decision itself is at:
There should be bring your gun to work everyday.
Can we do this in MA next? Can we please, huh? Can we?
Individual rights do not just apply at home.
I think most second graders should already know this
It will take several court instructions to the state of Illinois and Chicago as they are populated in government by progressive mental defectives. You’ve got to talk and write slowly, using simple short words and sentences, for these people to understand.