Supreme Court Asked to Clarify What it Means to ‘Bear’ Arms

Wall Street Journal ^ | Feb 10, 2014 11:06 am | Jacob Gershman

[Texas Fossil]

You might think the question would be settled by now, but the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to opine on whether the Second Amendment right to “bear” arms for self-defense extends outside the home.

We may soon get an answer. Lyle Denniston, writing for the Constitution Daily, reports about two gun rights cases that may get a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both cases, dealing with restrictions on the ability of minors to possess weapons in public, hinge on the difference between the right to “keep” a gun and a right “bear” one. The National Rifle Association thinks the issue is ripe for Supreme Court review. The justices are expected to discuss the cases next week and may then decide whether to grant review.

[Texas Fossil]

Well. We all know what Obozo thinks about the Constitution.

But it says "The Right of the People" "Shall not be infringed".

In Texas we like our guns, and will keep them......

[G Larry]

K...FReepers....

I expect someone to post a pic of a forearm with a rolled up sleeve by post #5.

[jeffc]

...but the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to opine on whether the Second Amendment right to “bear” arms for self-defense extends outside the home.

People are still trying to re-define the 2A and bury the notion that it is really for the defense against a corrupt government, such as we currently have.

[ClaytonP]

[Olog-hai]

Well, from Merriam-Webster’s transitive verb definition:

1. to move while holding up and supporting (something)
2. to be equipped or furnished with (something)

If the SCOTUS acts towards the Constitution again as Obama has, as well as attack the meaning of language to distort it (again), we are heading for a constitutional crisis at the very least.

[fhayek]

Where does it say that any right enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply ONLY withing one’s home?

[Envisioning]

This gets so tiresome.

I really don't care how "you all" rule anymore, you will still have to kill me to take my guns so let's get on with it already..........I'm ready. Are "you all"?

[yoe]

The Robert’s Court pays little attention as to the real meaning of what the Constitution says....they keep shaping it to what they want...anyone can do that. Few can stay within the confines of our Constitution or the Ten Commandments...both are C-O-N-S-T-A-N-T! Like this President, Justice Roberts lies when it is to his advantage to do so.

[Usagi_yo]

The right to keep. — To possess.
The right to bear. — The right to wield.

Two distinct meanings in the same amendment that totally compliment each other and give force and weight of meaning totally unto itself.

[Tenacious 1]

Ironically, the definition is irrelevant, made so by the fact that our legislators aren’t even allowed to infringe on the right. Meddling in the weeds about the definition of something that shall not be infringed upon is itself seeking a way to do exactly that. Am I wrong?

[envisio]

I always thought it was written to mean that the people had the right to arms so that they could be able to form a militia against a hostile government.

[hoosiermama]

Michelle has bare arms in almost every picture these days. I hear she’s made it fashionable

[envisio]

Yep. I have a bumper sticker that says when they get my gun it will be empty and hot.

[Olog-hai]

Not at all. That’s why they’re attempting to redefine words, so that if “bear” no longer means those meanings I listed, they can’t say they’re “infringing” on the rights in question even though they are.

[stubernx98]

The problem is that Lawyers are allowed on the Supreme Court. Lawyers are people who get their ego satisfaction from controling other people. They should also be banned from policial office.

You know, 98% of Lawyers make the other 2% look bad!

[elkfersupper]

If anyone would care to read the Federalist Papers, it would become apparent that there was a great deal of opposition to and controversy over the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The thinkers in the crowd thought that the amendments would only serve to open up challenges.

Guess what? They were right.

[DJ MacWoW]

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed,
unlike the citizens of other countries
whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms."
James Madison

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

[Ray76]

Like what “is” is?

[Texas Fossil]

No question that was the Intent of the Founders.

[PapaBear3625]

In 1856, the Supreme Court issued the famous "Dred Scott v Sanford" decision, where they held that blacks could not be considered citizens. But the interesting part is WHY they thought it absurd that a black could be considered a citizen:

For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

So, back then, it was considered a right of citizenship that a citizen was able to be armed, and moreover be armed as he went about his affairs in public.