[William Tell]

One case which is just going to the Supreme Court is the Norman case from Florida.

Norman carried a gun openly in Florida and, despite having a valid concealed carry permit, was charged with a crime. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Norman is appealing to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court will hopefully take the case and decide what the Second Amendment means when it says, "the right of the people to [...] bear arms shall not be infringed".

In prior decisions, the phrase "bear arms" has been discussed and some argued that it only referred to bearing arms in defense of the nation, or some such nonsense.

Wiser heads recognized that to "bear arms" means to carry them, including for purposes of self-defense. Bearing arms for purposes of defending the nation is a part of "bearing arms".

The question then becomes, what did the Founders mean when they ratified an amendment which protects bearing arms? Since the vast majority of people who were bearing arms at that time, whether for self-defense or defense of that nation, would have been carrying long guns, just how would it be possible that the founders intended the government to be able to outlaw the bearing of long guns by demanding that guns be carried concealed?

I don't see how Norman can be disappointed except for the possibility that the liberals will make it known that they care so little for the Constitution that they will discourage the Court from taking the case.

This is an important case for Kalifornia since it will address the prohibition against open carry and will also affect the "may issue" permitting process which is a legal abomination. How will it do that, you might ask?

The answer is that the legislators and the governor will rush to their desks to create a "shall issue" concealed carry law in order to encourage people who will be carrying openly to conceal their arms. I plan to be among such people.

[Sopater]

The Supreme Court will hopefully take the case and decide what the Second Amendment means when it says, "the right of the people to [...] bear arms shall not be infringed".

I realize that I might be stepping on a few toes here, but I believe that the 2nd Amendment was written to put limits on the power of the federal government, not the individual states.

[MileHi]

...shall not be infringed".

Will the Court ever acknowledge these words and address their meaning?

in·fringe.
.
[inˈfrinj]
VERB

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.):

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

[marktwain]

I don’t see how Norman can be disappointed except for the possibility that the liberals will make it known that they care so little for the Constitution that they will discourage the Court from taking the case.

---

Most cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court are not heard by the Court. Over 97% are not heard.

The Supreme Court has been hesitant to hear Second Amendment cases for a while.