Skip to comments.Supreme Court to weigh what it means to have a right to “bear” guns
Posted on 02/06/2014 9:38:02 AM PST by Phillyred
The statement at issue:
There is a growing line of court of appeals decisions that, while stopping short of holding that there is no Second Amendment right outside the home, consistently reach the same result by deeming any right to bear arms in public to be, at best, outside the Second Amendments core and then balancing it away under an anemic form of intermediate scrutiny.
Charles J. Cooper, a Washington, D.C., attorney for the National Rifle Association, in a brief filed at the Supreme Court on Monday, urging the Justices to strike down a law that bans minors from carrying a handgun in public, beyond the home.
We checked the Constitution and...
The Second Amendment, at its core, spells out not one, but two, rights when it protects the right of the people. There is a right to keep a gun, there is a right, to bear a gun. There is an and between the two in the text, so that might well be taken as a significant indication that these are separate rights.
The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to keep a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home. But it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home. If there is a separate right to bear a gun (and the Court, in fact, did say in 2008 that the two rights were separate), it has not said what that means...
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
It DOESN’T SAY A DAMN thing about “Guns” it says ARMS! G*D I HATE BIG CITIES!
Why is this issue settle and then rehashed ad nauseam?
It’s not “bear GUNS’ it’s ‘bear ARMS”...........BIG difference.......................
I don’t see “but only inside the home” anywhere in there.
Where’s the confusion?
Right, abortion on demand is “settled” law in our constitution apparently, but the black and white right to keep and bear arms is not? The right to express your faith in public is not?
You are very correct, and the right to bear 'all the terrible implements of the soldier' is our fundamental right.
I believe the proper, “original intent” of the separate right of being free to “bear” arms is that regardless if it is a firearm, a sword, a peashooter, a tactical nuke, an M1 Abrahams tank, a Federation starship, or a shark with frikken laser beams...
...that we have the right to take this arm and apply it’s full intended purpose against those that seek to eliminate the “keep” right.
Yep, ARMS can be anything from guns and swords to a baseball bat.
*** But it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home.***
Dred Scott vs Sanford.
What the SCOTUS thought about gun control in the pre Civil War era.
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;
and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.
Does this mean I can or can’t roll up my sleeves outside of my home?
There is none per se. However, when you want something no else does the water needs to be really muddied. Hence, the use guns vs arms. The more confusing and muddled you can make things the better. Then its easy enough to redefine words and language to make them mean what you want w/o actually revealing your true intent. People assume your words and phases mean something they dont mean.
What that headline REALLY means is that they will attempt to RE WRITE the Constitution on the right of American citizens to bear arms.
You can ‘bare’ as much as you, or your neighbors, can ‘bear’.......................
LOL! What a bunch of low hanging fruit!
The Founders knew full well that the function of a conjunction was to bind 2 things together.
If their intentions were for the acknowledgment to be considered separate, they would have written 'the Right to keep OR bear arms'.
“Why is this issue settle and then rehashed ad nauseam?”
Liberals are like those movie monsters who get killed but there’s still five minutes left. POV over monster’s prostrate form. The cute young couple come close to look. The monster jumps up and charges. This will keep getting rehashed until liberals are satisfied with the “right” resolution. The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Good luck strapping on that M1 tank!!!
Do the Supremes really have final authority? Can we not legislatively affirm that 2A is and will remain a right and cannot be infringed upon?
Not 100% sure, but I thought I heard Mark Levin once say that the State Legislatures actually are more powerful than the US Congress (I assume he means provided they get a set).
Can no longer trust the Roberts Court.
Good point! The word gun is not used in the Constitution. Correction welcome.
I hate these cases because since it is about a minor's right to carry we are going to get another muddied decision like Heller.
Lord knows what Roberts will do with this one.
A hell of a lot of ‘minors’ took up arms to defeat the British. Many of them gave their lives so that we might live in freedom. A pox on those who disavow their sacrifice.
This fact is my argument against the age 21 drinking laws. One could be forced (by the draft) to fight for one’s country yet cannot have a beer.
I'll also bring up a pet peeve about the media. They a report that a “teen” committed a crime when the perp is 18 or 19. Technically they are correct, however most think of a teen as 13 to 17.
Or even arms.
As in: “I’m going to rip your arm off and beat you over the head with it”.
or a plasma rifle in the 40 watt range...
“it has not said what that means...”
The people questioning the wording want the meaning to be as limited as possible.
Those who wrote the wording intended as expansive a meaning as possible.
More words are not going to resolve this.
You must be a hillbilly.
They’ll just put a bunch of disabled weapons attached via cable in parks and other public space. People can come by and pick them up and handle them whenever they want thus ensuring the public’s right to bear arms is not infringed.
VA law allows open carry without a permit. Norfolk police arrested a man for openly carrying a weapon in the city in violation of a city ordinance.
The case made it to the VA supreme court, who ruled that no municipality can pass a law the supersedes a state law, e.g. Norfolk's ordinance was invalid.
Therefore, any state, county, or city law MUST be constitutional.
Yep. Pretty much.
My HOME is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms - you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow.
“More words are not going to resolve this.”
No, and I’m sure not getting any younger.
The State Legislatures can make any law, let's say a gun law, outside the jurisdiction of their state courts. CONgress can also make laws outside the jurisdiction of Federal Courts. Its called Jurisdiction stripping.
The Federal and State Legislatures could do this to overcome activists Judges but they do not for this reason: they agree with with the activist Judges but can't let the rubes at home know that.
Roberts won't know either until he gets Valerie's text.
I had a feeling since I don’t ever hear that said outside the mountains.
They’ll be trying to convince us that the Founders meant that it is OK to wear tank tops and nothing more...
The word “bear” was merely a spelling error...yeah, that’s the ticket!
Nobody asked the bears.
Don't worry, 'they' will get to those after 'they' are done with guns.
You may go walking bare in the woods but it would be wise to at least bear a bear gun as your bare arms are not effective against bears.
Whatever his handlers want him to do.
Obviously the second amendment also protects Knives, Bow and Arrow, etc. but MOST IMPORTANTLY it protects arms of the future,yet to be invented. Phase Plasma Rifles in a 40 watt range are protected by the second amendment. Whatever our future soldiers carry as weapons MUST be protected by the second amendment or we will not have the protections as intended by the founders.
I’ll bear that in mind....................
My daughter has to carry a gun with her every time she goes out of the house where she lives. There are bears, and one was in her yard just before Thanksgiving...................
I think you are over-simplifying the use of the conjunction. If I had a right to "dance and sing", you would claim that I can't simply dance without singing or sing without dancing?
In this case, the movie monster escapes, badly wounded, but to regroup and attack again at the next sequel.
Settled in 1791!
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.