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 ...
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.
/johnny
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.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html
“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.
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.