This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 10/29/2021 7:16:41 AM PDT by PROCON
The Supreme Court’s nine fine minds are about to ponder the meaning of a verb. What they decide will have important state and municipal policy consequences. How they decide — their reasoning — might have momentous implications for how the current court construes the Constitution.
The Second Amendment — “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” — includes a 13-word preamble that was not explicitly interpreted until 217 years after the amendment’s ratification in 1791. The court decided in 2008 that the preamble did not mean that the right to possess firearms was conditional on membership in a militia.
Thirteen years have passed since this ruling that the amendment guarantees an individual right, independent of militia membership. But the particular right at issue in 2008 was the right to keep a functioning handgun in one’s home for self-defense. Now, the court must construe one of the amendment’s 14 other words: “bear.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Only a lawyer would try to dispute the plain meaning of the word “bear” in this context.
L
I wonder if SCOTUS will find a penumbra in the 2nd amendment?
Bear = own, keep and have on your person or hold. Very simple.
No carry permits are legal because they are not required.
The Constitution of the United States guarantees the right, states have taken that "right" away.
I pray SCOTUS re-instates my right to carry, in EVERY STATE and DC without a "Carry permit".
I don’t recall what the Democrat dictionary definition is.
In reality, it doesn’t matter what the Supreme court
decides. The people will decide the meaning.
Will is right about one thing though, the preamble
means NOTHING.
Every state was ordered to draw up their own constitution BEFORE the Federal Constitution. I’m going to go back again and look....pretty sure the right to bear arms is in some of them and no mention of militia.
I think George Will and Cal Thomas are two of the most full of crap people in the world.
Dem dict=
Bear means naked.
And not just arms.
Whole bodies.
This is the Dem mind.
We know what it means. Carry, bring along, deploy, use.
Decide whatever you want and then try to enforce it. I dare you!
I don’t expect them to come up with anything heroic.
A leftist Supreme Court would be concerned with the word, “arms”. I’d bet they would say “arms” are include shoulders, upper arm, forearm and hands and that women and transgenders have the right not wear long sleeves, but the founders really meant that to be any garment. In this case, they would leave it to the States to decide if women and transgenders can go completely unclothed in public.
The Supreme Court of Georgia said it best back about 1846.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
So, it means to have arms: guns and weapons.
In a Republic, the people are the army, the citizens. Like it was in Ancient Rome before the Empire.
The people of a Republic MUST be armed and ready. When people start saying ‘bear’ doesn’t mean that, they are saying we aren’t a Republic anymore.
An absolutely fair & correct reading of the preamble, rarely discussed, interprets that wording thus:
Despite the existence of a standing army, which is necessary to the existence of a sovereign jurisdiction, the right of citizens to possess weapons of war shall not be limited by the government.
To wit: just because the government has and relies on a professional military, doesn't mean the people can be disarmed. This absolutely counters the Progressive axiom "you don't need weapons, the government will protect you" and the rhetorical question "what good is a handgun against an army?" Yes we need the necessary evil of government, and its ability to defend the nation/state/jurisdiction, yet while a military acts on behalf of the government (which cannot exist if the populace is overrun), individual citizens have an absolute right to defend themselves - the notion of "sovereignty" beginning with the individual as having an absolute right to life, liberty, and property, and a duty to the individual's dependents.
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.