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 Amendment’s ‘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 ...
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!
Only Government AA hires, slackers and assorted Obama Bots need guns, not you. Even the USPS gets tons of ammo on our dime, to protect them from, well, dogs, I guess....
You are a subject.
ObamaCare, taxes, regulations and open borders for YOU little people. Now eat your peas!
If you are at home, and someone comes to your house to harm or kill you, then you can defend yourself because you are at home.
However, if that same person sees you in a parking lot and comes at you with the intent to harm you or kill you, then you must suffer injury or death because you are not at home.
At home or outside the home, it's the same body. One can only conclude that to the liberals, the home is more valuable than the body, because the home is the only place they want you to be able to defend yourself.
That’s correct. You have no right to bare arms outside your home. Unless you live in San Francisco, where you can bare anything you choose.
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that existed before there very was a US Constitution—or Bill of Rights. the same “useful idiots” who whittle away at this pretending they are not attacking the “core” are “infringing” no matter how beguiling the argument. Problem is we have a Court that is as willing to divorce itself from the supreme Law —by use of tests of logical skill—and metaphysical refinements—that are out of place in understanding the Constitution. when the supreme Court agrees with the Constitution and when the Rule of Law— (Human laws must not contradict the Laws dictated by God,Himself,else they are ill made.) Then I will follow where they lead—but this CRAP about them being the ones who say what the LAW has got to end.Else we have no need for a written law that contradicts the high priests of the cult of law.
No. Since you can do both - 'sing and dance' - doesn't necessarily mandate you MUST be doing them both at the same time. What if, however, you could not dance without singing? In the case of bearing arms, the ability to keep arms is a prerequisite to bearing them.
Considering them separate Rights implies the ridiculous notion that you could carry something you didn't have the acknowledged right to have in the first place!
IMHO, that's also why they used the unquestionable joining conjunction 'and' instead of the refining/exclusive conjunction OR.
You stinker! I JUST got that song outta my head, too!
:-)
I prefer Violation of Due Process. :-)
I don't agree that "keeping arms" is a prerequisite to bearing them.
Many anti-gunners adopt the view that all of our arms should be KEPT in central armories and only released when we can evidence a need to bear them.
I would also point out that the word "OR" is more ambiguous that you are stating. That is why logical arguments distinguish clearly between "inclusive or" and "exclusive or".
"Inclusive or" is logically equivalent to "A or B or BOTH A AND B". "Exclusive or" is logically equivalent to "A or B but not BOTH".
You are correct to consult the context to resolve ambiguities. For example, I doubt very much that our Founders wished to protect the keeping of arms and the bearing of arms, but not the manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, modification, and storage of arms, as well as the training in use, inheritance, gift, and any other activities associated with being an armed people.
For proper interpretation, one need only look to the First Amendment and the very strict scrutiny afforded activities that are at all similar to exercising "freedom of the press".
In the Heller orals, Justice Kennedy made reference to both the language used in 'And' here and also in delinking the reference to the Militia Clause in Article 2 and said that there's an individual right either way whether 'keep' and 'bear' are regarded as separate or connected.
He also brought it up in a question to Washington DC's attorney Walter Dellinger right off the bat so as not to allow DCs counsel to bamboozle away his time with the conjunction structure; don't even try that crap with me, sonny.
Listen to the Heller orals and that's where Dellinger turns into a stuttering stumbling water-sipping page-flipping mess for the rest of his time at the podium.
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.