Posted on 11/27/2017 9:16:15 AM PST by jazusamo
No. All we know is that three or fewer Justices voted in favor of taking it up.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
Good comparison point!
Not really. It means that the NATIONAL INTEREST that is rooted in the Second Amendment is military....not that the sole purpose is.
If you read the bills of rights of the individual states that pre-dated the Constitution and the subsequent "Bill of Rights", MANY interests are enumerated.
IIRC, Connecticut's version was something like.."the people have the right to bear arms for defense of themselves (self-defense) and their own state (militia service), and the taking of game (hunting)."
The total structure of the federal amendment rules out none of those other uses....it just emphasizes the militia interest as critical to the national interest.
Wonder how Gorsuch voted.
Exactly HOW are you going to "concealed carry" a long gun?? ANY long gun.
We'll never know. Gorsuch. Thomas. Alito. All three could have voted to hear the case and it would still not get picked up.
The Military Arms of the day were the same Arms carried by Citizens, Muskets. They matched the Arms carried by the British.
Most of the Cannons used by the Patriots against the British were privately owned. Most of those came from Merchant Ships and were used to defend them from Pirates.
I guess you could say those same Cannons were used for self defense. If you had one it would difficult to conceal. #;^)
I still remember when you could buy a Military Surplus German Anti Tank Gun for $179 from the back of a Magazine.
That’s interesting.
Safe to assume that Roberts voted no.
He's a likely suspect, yes.
My hope is that some of the conservative members are holding out for Kennedy’s replacement before taking new 2nd Amendment cases.
Okay then, so if open carry is not part of the right to keep and bear, then concealed must be..... Precedent has already been set- if one is not permitted then the other must be allowed.... Even so, shall not be infringed is a tough grammatical statement for SCOTUSs to comprehend?
Good point.
I was just hoping nobody would bring up that particular fact. ;-)
Cut it into sections. ;-)
Tyrants, the lot of them.
Its been a few months since the AG in MASS has gotten up on the wrong side of the bed and decided to destroy our right to bear arms by executive fiat.
It could happen today. Or tomorrow. Only Maura knows for sure.
But its about hunting, isn’t it? //Sarc
>
...finding the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee a right to open carry.
Technically, I suppose I’d have to agree with that statement.
>
Sorry, but I fail to note any condition (no ‘if\and\but’) within the statements of the 2nd.
One may acquire/keep any sort/manner of ARMS. And one my BEAR the same in *any* fashion they so desire.
Anything else is an infringement.
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.