Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DaveLoneRanger

They haven't gotten to the "carry" part yet - people who live in the District aren't even allowed to OWN a gun.


200 posted on 03/09/2007 9:57:29 AM PST by nina0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: nina0113
pg 27.

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 Constitution’s Second Amendment (‘keep and bear Arms’) and Black’s 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 for “bear Arms.”

214 posted on 03/09/2007 10:10:40 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson