MS “open carry” law is now in the hands of the State Supreme Court

Attorney Lisa Mishune Ross who represents DA Robert Shuler Smith and the handful of Hinds County Constables who have been “confused” by House Bill 2, filed a rambling and mostly irrelevant brief with the MS Supreme Court supporting Judge Winston Kidd’s injunction against House Bill 2. After reading her brief I am concerned that we are left completely uninformed of Ms Ross’ stand on dueling.

A. Whether the phrase “called not be called into question” [ I believe she means "shall not be called into question"] means the Mississippi Legislature cannot place reasonable restrictions, consistent with public safety and Article 3, § 12, on the right to keep and bear arms in public?

B. Whether House Bill 2 is unconstitutionally vague on its face as a matter of law? .

C. Whether Judge Kidd violated the Separation of Powers Doctrine? Ms Ross begins her argument with the MS Constitution Article 3, Section 12;

“[T] he right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in the aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called into question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.”

She spends a great deal of time on the phrase “shall not be called into question” and attempts to make a point that this phrase does not limit the government from placing “reasonable limitations consistent with public safety on the right to keep and bear arms.” She continues further to site several court cases where the U.S. Supreme Court has issued opinions supporting governments ability to impose limitations on the “right to keep and bear arms”

What a bunch of morons!

“TO BEAR ARMS” is a purely MILITARY term.

Cf Dutch 1645-1665 O`Callaghan; “History of New Netherland”

1650`s New Netherland: also cf. ibid., p.430 “the town contained 40 men capable of bearing arms”

also cf. ibid., p. 126, 1650: “...thirty guns by the Director`s orders. These were delivered to Commissary Keyser, with directions to sell them to the Dutch colonists, who were unprovided with arms, so as to enable them to defend themselves. This Keyser did”

also cf. ibid., p.521 “Staten Island is a two good (Dutch) miles from the fort (Amsterdam). It was settled on the south side, out of sight of the fort, by ten or twelve men capable of bearing arms.”

1649: “New England is divided into four Colonies, which they style Provinces. Each Colony hath its Governor, and neither Patroons, Lords nor Princes are known there ; only the People. Each Governor is like a Sovereign in his place...; and this is what we have learned from divers of the English respecting New England. In Military affairs they have also some ffeneralia [sic]which we shall pass over with a word or two. All their inhabitants, burghers, farmers, planters and servants bear arms, and thereto each particular place hath its arrangement . They are divided into separate companies, and are commanded by their Majors and-Colonel* who are the Governors. la. case of invasion or other necessity each town knows, according to its strength, the quota either in men or money which it must contribute to the member or members in danger, according to the federation and order agreed upon in the case, among themselves: from this league is excepted only the difference which the Southern English have with the Dutch, in regard to occupation and settlement of boundaries and time may determine ...”
“Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York”; Procured in Holland,. England and France, 1856, London Documents XXVI, Vol. .—p.267

“Well, was this to be learned at military musters? ....But when it is necessary, the American citizen is always ready to BEAR ARMS without this militia training. how was it before in the last war in this State? [War of 1812] Were their any militia trainings to make the citizens of Pennsylvania prepared for service?”
“Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Vol. 4, by the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention, 1837-8”

Justice Scalia, in Heller, does not agree with you. Here is his response:

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country … .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief 18–23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in Muscarello said.

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Sorry, Sir, but Scalia`s bases appears to be wrong. Has he ever asked any family which has been in this land CONTINUOUSLY for 350 years with an unbroken line of firearms on the mantle ready to be grabbed at any notice of any hostilities against their country? --

Said arms being handed down thru generations from fathers and mothers to daughters and sons who are all marksmen and sharpshooters trained since their youth??

I dare say not!

But my family has had arms and borne them since 1644 in the land. So our family knows the meaning of the term to BEAR ARMS

We don`t need any judge to tell us theoretically in his ignorant non-bearing opinion what my ancestors fought and died for.

We have lived and judged and been judged by the noisy fires of battle, that true meaning of the words BEAR ARMS ---

It means to go to war with arms, our own firearms, and we didn`t need any militia in 1644, nor 1709 nor 1758 nor 1775 nor 1812-14 as my ancestors did in 5 different wars since 1688 til 1814 when there was no militia to help, and were left to fend for themselves against the enemies [cf-Tuttle, Watson ff War of 1812.]

We do not rely upon a top-down paper trail for the definition of "TO BEAR ARMS" because our my family`s trail is a trail of blood and blackpowder stretching from Ipswich to to New Netherland to Bunker Hill to Saratoga to Plattsburgh, all recorded in contemporary sources and in our family diaries, family bibles, contemporary newspaper accounts [ The War of 1812 volunteer actions in New York State & elsewhere have been glued to the cellar wall of my ggggrandfather`s since 1812, and oral traditions here.

It is time to actually ask the descendant families of those who BORE ARMS for over 350 years what the term means, not asking some some mute pieces of paper from someone at the top, but from the battle line volunteers at the bottom ranks.

The red lines here are not ink on paper but are my ancestors` blood soaked into the blessed soil of America, written not in vain but in purposeful glory.

I `ll bet Scalia has never read the history of the Dutch and New Yorker , Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire families` accounts of their ancestors BEARING ARMS and what those families actually know, since their BEARING ARMS IS A LIVING COMMEMORATION ONGOING TO THIS VERY DAY, SETTING LIBERTY AFLAME, NEVER TO BE EXTINGUISHED BY SOME SINGLE JUDGE WHO THINKS HE KNOWS that PRECIOUS noisy sound, FREEDOM`s RALLYING CALLS FROM THE PAST-

I DOUBT IT VERY MUCH.

EPILOGUE
HISTORICAL and CONTEMPORARY WITH THOSE TIMES DEFINITIONS OF TO KEEP AND BEAR
“TO BEAR ARMS” IS A MILITARY TERM-
TO KEEP ARMS IS IMPLICIT IN “TO BEAR ARMS” In any debate, one should define the terms used in the debate: \
Thusly:
Definition of to “KEEP” to preserve and maintain.. TO GUARD; DEFEND
to “KEEP” `means NOT TO LET GO ONE`S POSSESSION OR CONTROL” “KEEPER”,n., “one who watches, GUARDS, maintains”
to “BEAR: 1. to support and move; CARRY. 2. to be equipped furnished ..as to BEAR A SWORD. 3. to be directed; to be pointed, as TO PLANT GUNS TO BEAR UPON AS TRENCH”
Thus 2 and 3 above appear refer to BEAR as associated with WAR if the two definitions are combined we have” to keep and bear arms= To preserve arms, to maintain arms, to guard [with arms], to DEFEND with arms; to NOT LET GO ONE`S POSSESSION OF ARMS OR CONTROL OF ARMS” TO WATCH WITH ARMS, TO GUARD WITH ARMS, TO MAINTAIN WITH ARMS TO BEAR ARMS = TO SUPPORT ARMS, TO MOVE ARMS, TO CARRY ARMS TO BEAR ARMS = TO BE EQUIPPED WITH ARMS, TO BE FURNISHED WITH ARMS;
TO BEAR ARMS = TO DIRECT ARMS, TO POINT ARMS UPON A MILITARY TARGET
“TO FURNISH ARM[S]= “TO PROVISION FOR EFFECTIVE ACTION FOR OPERATION, ESPECIALLY IN WAR’ ALL above Webster`s Dictionary 1887
Therefore “to keep ARMS” MEANS NOT TO LOSE CONTROL OF= ergo SO-CALLED “Gun Control” is a violation of The Second Amendment.
“TO BEAR ARM”S IS A TERM OF WAR- TO KEEP ARMS IS IMPLICIT IN ‘TO BEAR ARMS” Historical examples of WAR TERM “BEARING ARMS’

“An account of the numbers of men able to bear arms in the ...’ by Thomas Carte An Account England: 1744 PREFACE May 1 1743
“As all appearances bid us soon expect a war with France, and the accounts given of the condition and abilities of that kingdom differ prodigiously, according to the different views, inclinations or prepossessions of our political writers, it is thought proper to publish to the world the following accounts: as well as the numbers of men able to BEAR ARMS, and fit to be employed in the service of the war...”

“We notice also in the Colony records, 1680, Srj.John Barker was freed from BEARING ARMS for the wounds in the late war.’ p17.
p.239 “Peter Collamore (early Collamer) was on the list of those liable to BEAR ARMS in Scituate 1643.
“ p.118 “Military Affairs’In 1643 the Colony Court ordered a list of men liable to BEAR ARMS that year.” — “History of Scituate, Massachusetts: from its first settlement til 1831’ by Samuel deane, 1831

p.168, ‘No freeman shall be compelled to BEAR ARMS, nor pay an equivalent therefore, except in times of exigency or WAR.”
“. Every man should be a citizen, and every citizen a soldier; and then he would be best able to defend his country and his own property.’”
p.180. “he right of conscience in relation to BEARING ARMS is a scared right. It is equally sacred with the right to self-defence.
But what is meant of our militia? Why, when he spoke of them, he meant American citizens, accustomed to the use of arms; not in the camp or in the field, but American citizens accustomed to use THEIR ARMS, and to all that manual dexterity which could only be gained by long practice; not field maneouvering and marching, but a perfect knowledge of the rifle and the musket.
Such a use of the rifle that you could take the eye out of a squirrel on the highest tree.
This was in all, and beyond this there was no necessity to go in this country. In this the soldiers of our country had a superiority of those of any other. Ask the British officers who were engaged in the last war whether there was no superiority in our troops in this respect.
WEll, was this to be learned at military musters? ....But when it is necessary, the American citizen is always ready to BEAR ARMS without this militia training. how was it before in the last war in this State? [War of 1812] Were their any militia trainings to make the cititzens of Pennsylvania prepared for service?
Not At all-they were ready to meet the enemy in the east and in the west. How was it in Tennessee before the Battle of New Orleans.
Did the men who fought that battle perform militia service to prepare them for it?
No sir- it was known that they did not. Were the militia of Bunker Hill, prepared for the events of that day of glory by previous trainings as militia? No sir.
“p183 p.79
“He thought, too, that we ought not to prohibit aliens who had made this their adopted country, from BEARING ARMS in its defence in time of WAR.

WEARING ARMS< BEARING ARMS
Volunteers#War of 1812
“Governor Synder, 1815- Our militia and volunteers were actually engage with the enemy..”p99 ...if we destroyed the militia system, we did not indeed take away the right of the people to bear arms, but we destroyed the inclination, the habit of WEARING ARMS; and such was not his [Gov. Snyder]sentiment as to what ought to be the condition of things in a country like ours. He believed that not only right, but the habit of WEARING ARMS was essential to freemen, and to the preservation of the liberty of freemen.
This was the principle inserted into the Constitution of the United States; and if we did away with this, the effect would be to destroy the principle and the feeling altogether.” .100 p.105.
he terms of the Constitution he need not refer to; and the amendment now under discussion was simply an AFFIRMANCE OF A POWER,-THAT THE RIGHT OF A PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Who fought the Battles, of Lexington,Bunker Hill and Saratoga?
...Who saved Baltimore? ... Who obtained the victory at New Orleans?
These militia, trained and disciplined in their own houses; not practised in the field, but BRINGING THEIR GUNS WHICH THEY WERE TAUGHT TO USE WHEN CHILDREN..”.111
viz [all above from p.168 are sourced from ï¿½Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Vol. 4, by the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention, 1837-8

Nope- Evidently, Sir, it appears that both you and that stupid judge have never gone hunting in your lives before and have never handled a rifle or a pistol or a shotgun or any gun????

You are both FACTUALLY in error and wrong as we have carried weapons here for target practice, hunting deer, hunting coydogs, rats here in the mountains for hundreds of years and that term "BEAR ARMS" has never been use here for over 250 years since immemorial to describe "carrying a firearm"-

as is we do use the terms "Bring your gun - Grab your 30-30, bring your 44 or 22 or Let`s go hunting" -or let`s go target practicing or plinkling cans off a log-

There has never been heard here since the time before the French and Indian War even til now whereby a person would hear the words " let`s go bear arms to go target practising or hunting-

What a dumb statement!

You Sir and that silly judge are appearing to be nonsensical idiotic idea propagandists-

My mother who is 94 and can still shoot a .22 with dealdly aim at rats as she did in 1927 is laughing at you . What a bunch of silly morons people appear to be when they would say let`s go "bear arms" and go hunting

/My cousins on the Mohawk reservation will also laugh at such a ridiculous argument as they have binding treaties with NEW YORK STATE and the Federal government to "use firearms on the reservation forever"-since 1795 and colonial treaties before. This fallacious silly argument that to "BEAR ARMS" has anything to do their carrying rifles or hunting- but it does have ALL to do with their right/our right to wage war against any tyrant by BEARING OUR ARMS AGAINST ANY TRYANT as my gggfather did in 1775, 1777 1812. PERIOD!!!!!

You can also check all the local mountain newspapers here archives dating back to 1802 wherein you will never find the term"bear arms"for just carrying weapons-

You people had better do you homework before you spew fallacious stupidity as this on the internet. This is due to the FACT that people who talk this way about the Second Amendment have never lived with it nor had weapons in their homes and in their families for over 350 years. They, Sir, do not know what they are talking about and should do some due diligence on the historical facts before they utter dumb statements by quoting a few of our forefathers. Come up here and Ask the 100,000 people here in the mountains whose practice of the Second Amendement and whose PURE UNFRINGED clear understanding of the reasons behind that Second Amenmdment are unmistakenly etched in their very blood and bones forever by their ancestors. One does not arrive at the truth sometimes from a supposed guess at what happened in history-

ONE HAS TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE-

IN THIS CASE THIS STUPID JUDGE HAS FAILED TO LOOK AT ANY OF THE HARD TANGIBLE EVIDENCE- NOT just "BOOK EVIDENCE" but interview evidence, actual guns themselves, and their owners,-

Just go to any HISTORICAL SOCIETY and therein, SIR, you and this stupoid "judge" will find the truth of the Second Amendment and how it was lived since the American Revolution and before, in the States` constitutions by the people themselves who were armed then with all the MODERN-DAY WEAPONS of their times.

Sir, One should KNOW history well and not GUESS AT IT OR SERIOUS EGREGIOUS ERRORS ENSUE AND ON WOULD APPEAR TO BE THE FOOL in front of 100,000 laughing patriots.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.