[Red Badger]

Gun cases can talk?...........no wonder there’s noise in my closet. I thought it was mice..................

[apillar]

...if the Second Amendment right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public

This argument is a stretch any for the liberals, what other constitutional rights end when you walk out your door, do you lose your right to free speech in public? Can you only practice your religion at home? Do reporters lose the right to a free press when they walk out their front door?

[WayneS]

For anyone not suffering from cranio-rectal insertion issues gun rights cases are EASY to decide.

After all, one only needs to know the meanings of four simple words:

shall...

not...

be...

infringed...

[Yo-Yo]

I'm more interested in the Supremes taking up the 9th circuit decision in Peruta v. San Diego, which essentially mandated shall issue CCW permits, and the 3rd circuit decision in Drake v. Filko which upheld New Jersey's may issue (which means no issue in practice) laws.

If the Supremes rule in favor of the 9th, then the entire country would be shall issue, including states such as New Jersey, and cities such as New York City.

Then you would see Liberal heads explode.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Somewhat misleading headline. The cases haven’t been “heard” by SCOTUS. They are on a long list of cases where parties have asked the Court to accept the cases, which will be taken up in a conference of the justices. If four or more Justices vote to grant review, then the Court will hear the cases.

[frog in a pot]

...the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense...

Am still trying to get my head around the wisdom or value of describing the pre-Constitution right to bear as limited to "self-defense".

[Amendment10]

The Supreme Court on Friday will vote behind closed doors to accept three Second Amendment cases that could further define how minors, and adults, are allowed to carry a gun outside of their own homes.

Consider that the USA was a mostly rural country until 1920, citizens essentially living off of the land with no local police departments to call for help, especially since wire telephone technology had just been invented and probably wasn't in rural areas anyway. So the anti-gun rights question if people are allowed to carry a gun outside their homes is naïve at best imo.

Noting that the courts are now indicating that there is no constitutonal right to police protection, the Founding States had made the 2nd Amendment to clarify the following. Citizens are expected to exercise their natural right to self-defence and use arms to police themselves.

So if anti-2nd Amendment people argue that the amendment is obsolete, then they need to work their agenda within the framework of the Constitution as follows. They need to work with their state and federal representatives to propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states to "modernize" the 2nd Amendment. And if the Article V supermajority of states chooses to ratify the proposed amendment, very unlikely imo, then gun rights will be constitutionally limited and gun-control people will be heroes.

[Logical me]

I no longer trust anything from the Supreme Court. America's freedom is gone and these idiots are part of the problem.

[2ndDivisionVet]

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”

~Senator (later Vice President) Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) Source:”Know Your Lawmakers,” Guns magazine, February 1960, p.6