Skip to comments.Supreme Court Asked to Clarify What it Means to ‘Bear’ Arms
Posted on 02/10/2014 12:09:17 PM PST by Texas Fossil
You might think the question would be settled by now, but the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to opine on whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense extends outside the home.
We may soon get an answer. Lyle Denniston, writing for the Constitution Daily, reports about two gun rights cases that may get a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both cases, dealing with restrictions on the ability of minors to possess weapons in public, hinge on the difference between the right to keep a gun and a right bear one. The National Rifle Association thinks the issue is ripe for Supreme Court review. The justices are expected to discuss the cases next week and may then decide whether to grant review.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
But it says "The Right of the People" "Shall not be infringed".
In Texas we like our guns, and will keep them......
I expect someone to post a pic of a forearm with a rolled up sleeve by post #5.
People are still trying to re-define the 2A and bury the notion that it is really for the defense against a corrupt government, such as we currently have.
If the SCOTUS acts towards the Constitution again as Obama has, as well as attack the meaning of language to distort it (again), we are heading for a constitutional crisis at the very least.
- to move while holding up and supporting (something)
- to be equipped or furnished with (something)
Where does it say that any right enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply ONLY withing one’s home?
I really don't care how "you all" rule anymore, you will still have to kill me to take my guns so let's get on with it already..........I'm ready. Are "you all"?
The Robert’s Court pays little attention as to the real meaning of what the Constitution says....they keep shaping it to what they want...anyone can do that. Few can stay within the confines of our Constitution or the Ten Commandments...both are C-O-N-S-T-A-N-T! Like this President, Justice Roberts lies when it is to his advantage to do so.
The right to keep. — To possess.
The right to bear. — The right to wield.
Two distinct meanings in the same amendment that totally compliment each other and give force and weight of meaning totally unto itself.
Ironically, the definition is irrelevant, made so by the fact that our legislators aren’t even allowed to infringe on the right. Meddling in the weeds about the definition of something that shall not be infringed upon is itself seeking a way to do exactly that. Am I wrong?
I always thought it was written to mean that the people had the right to arms so that they could be able to form a militia against a hostile government.
Michelle has bare arms in almost every picture these days. I hear she’s made it fashionable
Yep. I have a bumper sticker that says when they get my gun it will be empty and hot.
Not at all. That’s why they’re attempting to redefine words, so that if “bear” no longer means those meanings I listed, they can’t say they’re “infringing” on the rights in question even though they are.
The problem is that Lawyers are allowed on the Supreme Court. Lawyers are people who get their ego satisfaction from controling other people. They should also be banned from policial office.
You know, 98% of Lawyers make the other 2% look bad!
The thinkers in the crowd thought that the amendments would only serve to open up challenges.
Guess what? They were right.
Like what “is” is?
No question that was the Intent of the Founders.
For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. 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. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.So, back then, it was considered a right of citizenship that a citizen was able to be armed, and moreover be armed as he went about his affairs in public.
Rights of the individual are not enumerated in the U. S. Constitution.
The rights of the federal government are enumerated. Every other right which might surface was supposed to belong to the people.
So, this ongoing argument is moot, because the federal government was only granted certain limited powers.
Of course, if the people do not act to preserve their nearly unlimited rights, government will inevitably step in to "fix" that.
The framers knew this.
You have a lot of supporters in Texas.
Our experience with Revolution was just over 175 years ago. Too short a time to have fully forgot what it was about.
Like Texas Still IS! We like our guns and WILL KEEP THEM!
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.
Tiresome, absolutely. As you said tho, in the end it matters precious little what legislators or lawyers think. Either you just knuckle under or fight. This is what our forefathers did in the face of endless oppression. Like them we’re not looking for a fight, In fact its wise to prevent one if possible. Tyrants never seem to understand this grace and continue pushing past the point of no return....to their own demise. Very little positive comes from armed conflict esp. one thats protracted.
I am in Texas! LOL!
In Pa. we believe the same. “Come and Take Them”
I’d rather everyone just get back to work and leave us the hell alone, BUT, if they want to push the issue.....by all means, bring it!
The problem is, are we still living under the rule of law?
I wrote this on 28Jan2009:
Obamas Bill Hands ACORN $5.2 Billion Bailout
Normal lying Democrat strategy to see that they never loose another election.
Spelled- VOTER FRAUD
Welcome to New Kenya
Where the law of the jungle has replace the Law of the Land
23 posted on Wed 28 Jan 2009 06:42:31 AM CST by Texas Fossil
Good. The ComDems had best be careful for what they wish.
“...right to bear arms for self-defense...”
I’d like to know where they get the idea that the Second Amendment is only about self-defense?
Sorry I should have checked that. hee hee hee
That, too, is my interpretation. I believe that was the intent of those who wrote it.
Unfortunately, those who lust for power prefer to reverse that thinking. We need to elect to office people who believe as we do.
I’m sure Websters dictionary defines the word why ask SCOTUS to educate a moron!
Unfortunately, the only people or politicians I have heard express that sentiment were Ron and Rand Paul and Gary Johnson.
Advocating that any such people actually be elected to any national office that matters, even on this forum, is suicide.
It might be slow, it might be fast, but it is suicide nonetheless.
Ugh... I just threw up in my mouth.
Their arguments are that ridiculous.
The problem isn’t lawyers. The problem is lawyers who are judicial activists for an evolving Constitution as a living document that suits their agendas.
That being said, there is no requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be a lawyer. The President, with consent of the Senate, can fill vacancies with non-lawyers.
You are aware that in order to be nominated to the Supreme Court, you must be “approved” by the ABA.
I have tested over 1,000 people, and about 17% fall into the “influencer” category. these are people who get their ego satisfaction from controlling others. Most Lawyers, Policians, Journ O Listers, and entertainers are in this group. Problem is that 60% plus folks fall into the go along get along (security & compliance oriented) Doctors, Engineers, constsruction workers, programers, etc.
A vast majority of people would kill another person if a person of “Authority” told them too, and they believed that it was to the countries best interest.
Its funny Im running into more and more people who have that same attitude me included.
A lot of us are to the point of where we dont care any more.
Theres a reason the preamble to the Constitution says WE THE PEOPLE.
At some point were just going to tell the Feral Government to stuff where the sun dont shine and leave US the H.. alone.
The problem is WE THE PEOPLE are infiltrated with voting parasites. We have to deal with these scum at all levels, but, hey, the Feral Government is a great start!!
They didn't. The Heller decision did not completely negate the ruling in Miller, it simply enlarged it.
The actual meaning of the Miller decision is that arms which are useful to a Militia are protected by the Second Amendment.
The Heller decision adds that arms which are useful for self-defense are also protected. And because the Heller case challenged the law prohibiting keeping of functional handguns in one's home, the Heller Court specifically addressed that case.
In no way did the Heller Court suggest that self-defense outside the home is not protected. Nor did the Court suggest that arms useful to a Militia are not protected.
The Court simply limited itself to the legal issues necessary to decide Heller's suit. Specifically, does the Second Amendment apply to individuals? Yes. Does the Second Amendment protect an individual's ability to defend himself in his home with arms? Yes. Does the Second Amendment specifically protect the keeping of a functional handgun in the home for immediate use in self-defense. Yes.
The Court pointed out that Heller did not ask to be relieved of the burden of registration or licensing and so the Court did not address that issue. Just the mention of this leads me to believe that the majority just might have banned licensing and registration in this case had it been at issue.
I seem to recall the Third Amendment is specifically about one’s house, and doesn’t apply, to, for instance, one’s barn. Which actually strengthens the argument that the Second Amendment is not limited to one’s home, since the Founders could easily have included the words “within a citizen’s home”, but did not.
I thought through the situation some years ago and concluded that the only choice I had was to withdraw my consent to be governed. The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, were being deliberately and systematically ignored.
I saw somebody else claim that recently and he received much the same response I did; that is, it doesn't matter whether you consent or not.
But I disagree. My withdrawal of consent has the same moral force as that of our Founders when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. If I obey the law today it is not because I value the benefit to others. It is solely because it benefits me. I think that distinction is very important.
Will I ever consent to be governed again in the future? Perhaps. The Heller decision is a step in the right direction. The foot-dragging in the lower courts has, however, continued. We'll see.
The ABA review is a custom not a requirement. After the Bork fiasco, a conservative president should ignore or even pointedly ridicule the ABA as partisan hacks.
Here's the Third Amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The phrase "quartered in any house" may have implications beyond just where a soldier's bed is located. Who feeds the soldier? Who prepares the food? Whose pots or cookware is used. Who supplies the fuel for cooking? Who launders the soldier's clothing? Who tends to the soldier if he is sick?
The real meaning would have to be found by examining what abuses the Founders were trying to eliminate. It's not at all clear to me that such abuses would be avoided simply by having the soldier sleep in the barn. From what I have read there have been no court cases addressing the Third Amendment.
The supreme court and everybody else can deliberate and discuss, ad nauseum, the meaning of “bear” in the context of the 2nd Amendment but it will not change what all clear-thinking, Constitution-loving citizens know to be true.