Supreme Court to decide whether to hear cases regarding right to ‘bear’ arms

Fox News ^ | February 09, 2014 | NA

[no-to-illegals]

All these 5 - 4 decisions are worry-some. Am thankful though the 2nd has been affirmed consistently.

[MeganC]

Jefferson’s been rolling ever since the 16th Amendment was ‘ratified’.

[Texas Fossil]

Yes, agree.

[Kenny Bunk]

Holder on track to SCOTUS. He must be stopped.

Holder teamed up with Kaganovitch, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and any of the weak-kneed among the remaining, like Breyer .... and this country will shortly look like Chile under Allende.

Of course, with wimp-outs like Hatch, Graham, Snow, Collins, and McConnell, et al. repping us in the Senate , whomsoever the Marxist Mombasa MF wants, he'll get.

[Kenny Bunk]

PING

[GregNH]

The only right that requires a permit.

[highball]

“In other words they are going to determine if the term ‘to keep and bear arms’ really means to keep and bear arms.”

Scary, isn’t it?

And given this Court, I’m not sure I trust where they’ll come down on the question.

[lentulusgracchus]

In other words they are going to determine if the term “to keep and bear arms” really means to keep and bear arms.

Yes, the matter's in the hands of lawyers again .... including the Wise Latina and the Diesel Dictatrix .... every time the Supreme Court justices sit, for the last 60 years, the legislature has been in session.

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- old Federal Period aphorism.

[lentulusgracchus]

There is such a thing as “armory weapons” that the People keep in their armories for use when they turn out as the Militia ..... like Concord .... keeping them in armory, not on their front lawns.

[OneWingedShark]

A legal case will be made that the modern interpretation of “militia” will be the National Guard.
Count on it.

Funny thing; several states explicitly designate their militia as being all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 (or similar) — if they push that reading, they'll have to push an anti-state's-sovereignty agenda too.

[wastedyears]

The states that don’t define it that way outnumber the states that do. That’s all the “precedent” they need.