[DaveA37]

“The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed”, says a lot. However, one COULD argue that it does NOT say those “arms” can/cannot be loaded. Hmmmmmmmmm?

[cuban leaf]

However, one COULD argue that it does NOT say those “arms” can/cannot be loaded.

---

If they are not loaded, they are not really arms.

Regarding the case in question, though, I think “shall not be infringed” is pretty clear.

[JMJJR]

“The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed”, says a lot. However, one COULD argue that it does NOT say those “arms” can/cannot be loaded. Hmmmmmmmmm?

They picked that up in 1043, an unloaded firearm will be considered a deadly weapon.

HB13-1043
Modify Definition Of Deadly Weapon

Under current law, for the purposes of criminal law, a deadly weapon is defined as a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; a knife; a bludgeon; or any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, that in the manner it is used or intended to be used is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.The bill modifies this definition so that a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, qualifies as a deadly weapon regardless of the manner in which it is used or intended to be used.

[NonValueAdded]

would “bare” arms mean open carry? :)

I support your right to arm bears.

[Jim Noble]

The right to...bare arms

There is no such right.

[Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America]

I wonder what they have to say about open carry, hmmmmmm

[Dead Corpse]

Doesn't matter either way. There was no power given to the government to make such a finding. Especially for a Federal Circuit court.

Carrying concealed is a method of BEARING armaments. As such, it is protected. No matter how many black robed perverts claim otherwise.