FN Herstal Firearms banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,531 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Jacob Gershman

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.


Writes Mr. Denniston:
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.
The NRA says you can’t really ‘bear’ something in the privacy of your home.


“The explicit guarantee of the right to ‘bear’ arms would mean nothing if it did not protect the right to ‘bear’ arms outside of the home, where the Amendment already guarantees that they may be ‘kept,’ ” write the NRA’s lawyers in one of their petitions to the high court. “The most fundamental canons of construction forbid any interpretation that would discard this language as meaningless surplus.”


The federal government wants the Supreme Court to take a pass. If the justices agree to hear the cases, they might not get to them until their next term, beginning in October.

More: Supreme Court Asked to Clarify What it Means to ?Bear? Arms - Law Blog - WSJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
so the realistic result to this if ruled in our favor is that you cant be barred from open carry? we need some people then to try this in the commie states to push that result. interesting times ahead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
If the Supreme Court decides to hear this case and interprets the meaning of bear, you can be assured that the definition of infringe will be twisted into one of those big carnival pretzels that allows the States to choose its application. The Supreme call will proclaim that as long as carry permits are available that each state may choose how and for what purpose they shall be issued. It is a very sad state of affairs for gun owners in liberal states. Sometimes you have to vote with your feet and wallets and not visit or buy products manufactured in these states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,442 Posts
bear, /be(ə)r/, verb

verb: bear; 3rd person present: bears; past tense: bore; gerund or present participle: bearing; past participle: borne

1. (of a person) carry.
"he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses"

synonyms: carry, bring, transport, move, convey, take, fetch, deliver, tote, lug
"I come bearing gifts"


One wonders at times why so much needs to be made of something as simple as a definition that is takes SCOTUS to help us define the English language. Considering the Founding Father's actually spoke English and surely knew what the words they uttered and wrote meant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,109 Posts
So "they" are going to pick away at each word of the 2A...

Hopefully the court reads the dictionary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,442 Posts
It would be difficult to argue for a spirit or intent interpretation, it's either the word as a verb or the hairy beasts arms and I would hope they quickly rule out the hairy beasts arms, imagine what the animal rights activist would do? But, you never know these days.... :evil:


So "they" are going to pick away at each word of the 2A...

Hopefully the court reads the dictionary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Easy.

Bear means to carry.

That's different from 'keep'. You keep a gun at home, you bear a gun when you leave the home.
I see 'keep' as in the right to 'possess'. I see 'bear as in the right to 'carry'.

Though I'm sure we are saying the same thing, only worded differently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,304 Posts
so the realistic result to this if ruled in our favor is that you cant be barred from open carry? we need some people then to try this in the commie states to push that result. interesting times ahead.
It would matter little in the commielands of this nation. These ignorers of the Constitution will just play word games again. They will say alright you may "bear arms" as ordered by the Supreme court, BUT only the arms we will allow you to carry. They have already placed heavy restrictions on what type of weapons one is even allowed to keep so it would be just a simple task for them to say you may bear a single shot bolt action .22 rifle with an electronic interlock that will only allow the bolt to be operated at 5 second intervals. Then the SCOTUS will have to wait for a case to be brought before them so they can define what the word "arms" mean. This would put them is a sticky situation that they don't want to be. They would have to side with the states and allow them to define what arms constitute or rule that arms means any weapon that a citizen chooses. That would effectively declare the National Firearms Act unconstitutional. They would not likely try to pigeonhole the word arms. By the time this would make it to the court, it will be a leftist dominated body and we would be in big trouble.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They may be two separate rights, but both are listed verbatim.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,341 Posts
I think (ie. my opinion based on anecdotes) in the context of "bearing arms", it does not only mean "to carry", but also "to use."

Many state constitutions have a right of the citizens to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, clearly this implies a use as well as the action of carrying something.

If SCOTUS agrees to this premise, it could also spell an end to those who wish to take away the right to self defense (attempts to remove stand your ground laws, etc.) After all, what good is the right to carry a gun if you are not allowed to use it for self defense?
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top