Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma.
We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read bear Arms in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: Surely a most familiar meaning [of carries a firearm] is, as the Constitutions Second Amendment (keepand bear Arms) and Blacks Law Dictionary . . . indicate: wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person. Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning forbear Arms.
Someone help me out here. I understand that the USSC is an appellate court, that is, they review the findings of a lower court to determine if the decision was ‘correct’. Can anyone clarify what the ‘issue’ was with the lower court’s decision that the USSC will rule on?
In any case, I pray that if the ruling has to do with the individual’s right to be armed, independent of any organized militia, the correct decision be made.
As someone has pointed out in another article, the idea that the government would need to codify your right to carry a weapon while under government service and authority is absurd. They may also have included that you have the right to wear a uniform as well.
On this basis alone, any 2nd grade civics student would realize that the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right to be armed. Period
Ideas for signs, posters, billboards, taglines:
Keep Guns Out Of Criminal Hands! Support Capital Punishment!
Execute Criminals = No Guns In Criminal Hands
Swift Sure Capital Punishment = No Criminals Have Guns
Bad link. It’s :
http://www.zprc.org/legal/parkervdc.html