Skip to comments.Supreme Court to decide whether to hear cases regarding right to ‘bear’ arms
Posted on 02/10/2014 6:12:13 PM PST by neverdem
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide this month whether to hear two cases seeking clarification on what the Constitutions framers intended in granting citizens the right to not only own but also bear arms.
Lyle Denniston, a National Constitution Center adviser, writes on the Philadelphia Inquirers website that the National Rifle Association has, of late, brought two cases before the Supreme Court challenging prevailing legal wisdom that while the Second Amendment grants U.S. citizens the right to own or keep arms, that right does not necessarily extend to their ability to bear arms outside of their personal residences.
In one case, rooted in Texas, the NRA is reportedly challenging a state law permitting minors to own guns, but stipulating all the same that they are, in fact, too young to apply for -- and thus possess -- the license necessary to carry them in public...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It doesn’t specify where the Right can be observed, because it is a Right. It makes no exceptions, therefore the Right should prevail. If exceptions were intended, the framers would have made them explicit.
In other words they are going to determine if the term “to keep and bear arms” really means to keep and bear arms.
Has the Supreme Court ever gotten a gun case right? I can imagine that the right to “bear” arms will end up meaning that you are allowed to keep them locked in a vault in your basement.
They are trying to affirm the right without repealing any significant legislation like the background checks, AWBs, 1986 Machine Gun ban, 1968 GCA or 1934 NFA.
Yes, but all of that significant legislation ought to be repealed.
Best these things get resolved before the USSC is in complete and absolute control of the left.
They ought to be declared unconstitutional.
With the chain that Obama has around Roberts' sensitive parts it's already too late. The way I see it it's only a matter of time before they toss most of A2 out the window. There's a timetable in place we just don't know the details yet. They might even use a case like this to do it.
I would think the word keep means, well, to keep or posses. The explicit addition of bear I believe means to carry on one’s person or with them in/on a conveyance. It is my belief that background checks and permits are unconstitutional because they infringe on these explicit provisions and protections.
I swear-I see headlines like that and the only thing that comes to mind is a long stream of invectives that would get me banned from FR. I can’t even read the article.....
LOL, I know, but who would be surprised by ANY ruling out of this Supreme Court, after Roberts' betrayal of the Founding on ObamaCare? Yeah, we did have Heller and McDonald, but the Left would LOVE nothing more than the Supreme Court defining away the right to bear arms.
In law interpretation, rule one is look at the text. The 2nd Amendment lists the right to “keep and bear arms.” The common use of “bear” is to carry and use something. A water bearer [carrier] goes out and about to distribute water. A woman “bears” a baby by having it in her womb and it is within her wherever she goes, until it delivers.
So, in other words, only the US military can have ‘em?
“keep and bear” go together
You cannot separate them. If I can’t bear an arm, where am I to keep it? If I can’t keep an arm, I won’t be able to bear it or use it when I need it). In some countries, you might be able to own a gun, but are required to keep it locked up at the local gun club. The framers certainly had no such intent in mind.
That such a stupid-sounding case is taken to the court when the wording and history behind the constitutional provision are so clear, shows just how far some subversive elements will go to undermine America. “Disarm(Ing) the people (is)....the best and most effective way to impose tyranny.” James
With the pirate Roberts on the bench, the Constitution is in the death throes!
We need appointed judges to figure out the meaning of the word “bear”? Let’s see which definitions might apply.
From 1828 Webster’s:
BEAR, v.t. pret.bore; pp. born,borne. [L. fero, pario, porto. The primary sense is to throw out, to bring forth, or in general, to thrust or drive along. ]
1. To support; to sustain; as, to bear a weight or burden.
2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, “they bear him upon the shoulder;”, “the eagle beareth them on her wings.”
3. To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.
4. To keep afloat; as, the water bears a ship.
5. To support or sustain without sinking or yielding; to endure; as, a man can bear severe pain or calamity; or to sustain with proportionate strength, and without injury; as, a man may bear stronger food or drink.
6. To entertain; to carry in the mind; as, to bear a great love for a friend; to bear inveterate hatred to gaming.
7. To suffer; to undergo; as, to bear punishment.
8. To suffer without resentment, or interference to prevent; to have patience; as, to bear neglect or indignities.
9. To admit or be capable of; that is, to suffer or sustain without violence,injury,or change; as, to give words the most favorable interpretation they will bear.
10. To bring forth or produce, as the fruit of plants, or the young of animals; as, to bear apples; to bear children.
11. To give birth to, or be the native place of.
Here dwelt the man divine whom Samos bore.
12. To possess and use as power; to exercise; as, to bear sway.
13. To gain or win.
Some think to bear it by speaking a great word. [Not now used. The phrase now used is, to bear away.]
14. To carry on, or maintain; to have; as, to bear a part in conversation.
15. To show or exhibit; to relate; as, to bear testimony or witness. This seems to imply utterance, like the Latin fero, to relate or utter.
16. To sustain the effect, or be answerable for; as, to bear the blame.
17. To sustain, as expense; to supply the means of paying; as, to bear the charges, that is, to pay the expenses.
18. To be the object of.
Let me but bear your love, and I’’ll bear your cares.
19. To behave; to act in any character; as,”hath he borne himself penitent?”
20. To remove, or to endure the effects of; and hence to give satisfaction for.
He shall bear their iniquities. Is. 53. Heb.9.
To bear the infirmities of the weak, to bear one another’’s burdens, is to be charitable towards their faults, to sympathize with them, and to aid them in distress.
To bear off, is to restrain; to keep from approach; and in seamanship, to remove to a distance; to keep clear from rubbing against any thing; as, to bear off a blow; to bear off a boat; also, to carry away; as, to bear off stolen goods.
To bear down, is to impel or urge; to overthrow or crush by force; as, to bear down an enemy.
To bear down upon, to press to overtake; to make all sail to come up with.
To bear hard, is to press or urge.
Cesar doth bear me hard.
To bear on, is to press against; also to carry forward, to press, incite or animate.
Confidence hath borne thee on.
To bear through, is to conduct or manage; as,”to bear through the consulship.” B.Jonson. Also, to maintain or support to the end; as, religion will bear us through the evils of life.
To bear out, is to maintain and support to the end; to defend to the last.
Company only can bear a man out in an ill thing.
To bear up, to support; to keep from falling.
Religious hope bears up the mind under sufferings.
To bear up, to keep afloat.
To bear a body. A color is said to bear a body in painting, when it is capable of being ground so fine, and mixed so entirely with the oil, as to seem only a very thick oil of the same color. To bear date, is to have the mark of time when written or executed; as, a letter or bond bears date, Jan.6,1811.
To bear a price,is to have a certain price. In common mercantile language,it often signifies or implies, to bear a good or high price.
To bear in hand, to amuse with false pretenses; to deceive.
I believe this phrase is obsolete, or never used in America.
To bear a hand, in seamanship, is to make haste, be quick.
All in good time, all in good time.
Let’s take Congress and hold it for a generation or two.
So, what if the constitution stated:
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
An inalienable right. That means from God. Every man has the right to protect himself and his family. Been that way since the beginning of time.
No. Waaaaaaaaay too much latitude and waaaaaaaaaay too subjective.
We have that in the IL Constitution. Not the exact same words, but it’s been interpreted that way.
Remember the very last state in the Union to allow its citizens (pronounced like slave, but with a Chicago accent) to maybe, sorta, kinda concealed carry?
I’ll give you a clue: sounds-like ILL-ANNOY
We may be approaching a point where the Tree of Liberty must be watered.
This is where they will do it, and will also say it is effective immediately.
I don’t care what the courts say. I care what God says.
It is irrelevant what the Supreme Court decides...
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
What if the constitution stated "No weapon law shall be passed."
There you go speaking logic again, Joe...
You know logic doesn’t apply when it comes to evil, scary guns... only emotion applies.
HISTORICAL PROOF THAT KIDS CAN KEEP AND BEAR ARMS-
THIS IS THE REAL AMERICA!!
EVEN THE BRITISH IN 1794 ATTEST TO THE EXERCISE AND PRACTICE OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS BY AMERICAN KIDS PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR:
1775 “The people of the colonies are accustomed to the use of fire arms from their earliest youth and are in general good marksmen. Such men placed in a house behind a wall or amongst trees are capable of doing as much execution as regular soldiers.” -. Stedman,p.120 [”The History of the Origin, Progress, and Termination of the .American War, Stedman, C. 1794, Volume 1]
in 1777 13 year old boys fought at the Battle of Saratoga with muskets. 1841, Dwight, “Northern Traveler”. p.141
Viz:: The terms of the Constitution he need not refer to; and the amendment now under discussion was simply an AFFIRMANCE OF A POWER,-THAT THE RIGHT OF A PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Who fought the Battles, of Lexington, Bunker Hill and Saratoga?
...Who saved Baltimore? ... Who obtained the victory at New Orleans?
These militia, trained and disciplined in their own houses; not practised in the field, but BRINGING THEIR GUNS WHICH THEY WERE TAUGHT TO USE WHEN CHILDREN..” p.111, p.168 are sourced from “proceedings and Debates of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania”, Vol. 4, by the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention, 1837-8
In 1919 a runaway 11 year boy old from Mass. took a train to Burlington VT., all by himself with his .22 rifle to “kill Indians at Port Kent”. The police got him coz he was a runaway from home but never questioned his right to carry a rifle on the train openly. “Ticonderoga Sentinel”, Sept. 1919
> to hear two cases seeking clarification on what the Constitutions framers intended in granting citizens the right to not only own but also bear arms.
permits turn constitutional rights into revocable privileges.
and also lists for govt to go after gun owners.
to get it onto your property you have to bear it. to go to a range for practice you have to bear it.
since police carry based on the same rights eveyone does, any changes to ‘bearing’ would apply to them as well. the same laws allow them to have guns and carry them.
sorry don’t like the change. too subjective ‘view’ and ‘prevent’ and ‘crime’.
From one northern NY State small newspaper, pop. 5,000, from 1874 to 1969 there are 834 newspaper articles concerning local town citizens and pistols. [almost 83 per year]
1891-92 Oct thru June “Guns, Pistols, Shot & Rifle
Cartridges in Stock”
1918 Apr.13 NY State “Examination for Game Protectors”
Requires Experience in USE OF PISTOLS
1923 Mar 29 “Laws Affecting Guides” -[cannot carry pistols
- they could for 150 years prior to this “law”]
Dec.1924-Jan 1925 “Education Notice” in how to use
revolvers and pistols [any age]
1939 “Violations of Section 171- new anti-pistol “law”
1944 Feb 10 American Legion displays guns, shells, ammo,
including 155 mm shell from Japan and Germany
brought home by local GI`s
June 3, 1948 “Treasury Dept Warns Vets to Turn in All
Jan. 30 1969 “Loopholes in Pistol Law”
It's clear from the Federalist Papers what was meant by keeping and bearing arms.
In The Federalist #8, Alexander Hamilton states the fear of having a standing army.
The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.
The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert; an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
Hamilton then argues that the formation of the militia by itself should be enough to prevent a standing army from forming.
Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.
``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
quote:James Madison adds to this in Federalist #46:
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.
A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?
If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.
Note that Madison is referring to Article I Section 8 "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence... Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
It is clear that the "militia" was meant to be the civilian population-at-large, armed with their own weapons, and trusted to bear them in their own common defense.
Yes. Publius has one.
Here is a link to the last Federalist entry. It contains links back to the first of the essays.
“In the home” is not “bearing”; that is storing: the home is an armory.
And why is “arms” always conflated to mean firearms only; when written, edged weapons were also commonly born. That has been infringed out existence almost universally.
2A has been so infringed to death incrementally as to be surreal.
The Second Amendment protects the right to wear a COAT OF ARMS!
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.
The purpose is to IDENTIFY The People, so they won't be mistaken for the enemy by the "well regulated militia'! When the troops see a citizen wearing (BEARING) the American flag (ARMS) lapel pin, they'll know that person is an American, not a Red Coat. It has nothing to do with weapons!
(SS) J. Roberts, Chief Justice, SCOTUS
Are you sure it isn’t?
We are 1 SCOTUS decision away from CWII and Roberts may well be the vote the left needs to go full scale against the American people.
Roberts agreed with Heller. 70 % of Americas or more agree with the Second Amendment.
It would be nice if they ruled that “shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed”, but I’m not that optimistic.
If the left has their way the second amendment will mean the right to not have your arms cut off at the shoulder and to wear short sleeved shirts.
Our Second Amendment does not limit. Only authoritarian control freaks limit. The intent of the second amendment was to allow the citizens the right to have weapons comparable to those of an opposing army. The really means we should have the right to own a tank or machine gun or whatever is to be used against us.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.