...and bear arms?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

There is a lot of focus on the right to keep arms. The Heller case is a great start. Do you think it's possible that all of the discrepancies from state to state as well as with states and cities that don't allow CCW or open carry at all can be cleared up with a SC case that determines what the "and bear" means? IMO, bearing arms is pretty simply. Bearing something means having it with you, on your person. Keeping arms is one thing. You can keep them at home. If that was all the 2A meant, why add "And bear?"

It seems pretty cut and dry to mean. The definition of bear isn't really that confusing or esoteric. If the SC can take a case and determine that bearing something means what it means, IE having it with you, could most of the anti-CCW/OC laws be made unconstitutional?

We don't need a national CCW law. We just need to clear up the definition of the one we already have, the 2A.

 

[Solo Flyer]

The right of the people to keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed.
Like you said its so simple.
So why don't people understand?
Beats me.

 

[Zoogster]

Well most states once viewed open carry as every man's right. Only some allowed concealed carry. Open carry is what honest men did, and many felt only assassins and criminals had a need to hide thier weapon.
So unlicensed open carry was the norm for most of the country for a long time.
Gradualy restrictions came that didn't allow it in some states in some areas, but still in most others. Eventualy those added up so that it was in fact not allowed most places in many states.
Some time later people got the grand idea to allow people to carry once again, but this time concealed and this time requiring government licensing and permission.
That idea has spread and is what we have now.



So based on our history one could argue that carrying was widespread.
However I don't feel such a case has enough strong hard evidence that is what bear means. To bear something can also mean to bring it into use when needed.
Since the 2nd was primarily meant to allow citizens to defend against tyranny if necessary, the right to keep the arms someplace and then bring them to bear if needed could be and likely is the actual intended meaning when written down.

So an argument for carrying should be made on its own merits, not specificly on the 'bear' aspect of the 2nd.

 

[sailortoo]

zoogster - "to bear" and "bring to bear" are not the same. Context is very important. The first is to hold, to carry; the second is to point at - very different concepts. You can't change the 2A wording to include "bring to bear", as it is the wrong use of "bear". The only logical use of "Keep and Bear Arms" is to control them yourself (Keep) and carry them yourself (Bear). Any other definition of the words, as written, is "spinning" (as O'Reilly would say!). At least, that is my personal view of the wording.
sailortoo

 

[Standing Wolf]

It seems pretty cut and dry to mean. The definition of bear isn't really that confusing or esoteric. If the SC can take a case and determine that bearing something means what it means, IE having it with you, could most of the anti-CCW/OC laws be made unconstitutional?

Plain English means what it obviously means what it means until the lawyers show up.

 

[Jim March]

There have been a lot of attempts to cast "bear arms" as being in a military sense. It doesn't make a damned bit of sense, to me. Yes, there's such a thing as "militia duty" which is a political right akin to "jury duty". Both involve a right to be part of the checks and balances of government itself. However, to read it purely that way makes no sense at all.

 

[TAB]

The only thing that would make the 2a clear, is to strike it and rewrite it.

There are also other issue envoled with a national CCW... number one on that list is "states rights" For example, saying you can OC, but can not CC is not an infregment. so a state could dictate one is legal and the other is not.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The only thing that would make the 2a clear, is to strike it and rewrite it.

There's nothing wrong with the Second Amendment. There's a great deal wrong with leftist extremists who claim to be entitled to "interpret" it seventy-seventeen ways from Sunday.

 

[TAB]

There's nothing wrong with the Second Amendment. There's a great deal wrong with leftist extremists who claim to be entitled to "interpret" it seventy-seventeen ways from Sunday

the same could be said about some of the extremists on the right...You interpert it to mean what you want, just as they interpert it to mean what they want.

let me ask you this... what does the terms arms mean legally? not what the found fathers wanted it to mean, since they are long dead and we can't ask them. While we are at it what does the word milita mean?

 

[jrfoxx]

I'd think Merriam-Webster to be universally considered to be an accurate, modern, unbiased source, so:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ (you need to search "arm", then go to the 3rd one down, marked arm[3,noun] cant do a direct link to this definition for some reason, and arm[1,noun] is all about body parts, etc, and the next is "arm" as a verb)

Main Entry: 3arm
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Anglo-French, from Latin arma
Date: 13th century
1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm b: a combat branch (as of an army) c: an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)
2plural a: the hereditary heraldic devices of a family b: heraldic devices adopted by a government
3plural a: active hostilities : warfare <a call to arms> b: military service
— up in arms : aroused and ready to undertake a fight or conflict <voters up in arms over the proposed law>



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia
Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: 1625
1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

There are also other issue envoled with a national CCW... number one on that list is "states rights" For example, saying you can OC, but can not CC is not an infregment. so a state could dictate one is legal and the other is not.

I don't see this as a state's rights issue. To be a state in the union, you have to follow the Constitution and BOR. If the right to carry a weapon on one's person is found to be inherent in the 2A, than it ceases to be a state issue just like the other amendments are not state issues.

 

[waterhouse]

For example, saying you can OC, but can not CC is not an infregment.

Can you please let me know how you define infringement?

 

[mr.72]

This is not a states rights issue, because it is enumerated by the Constitution. States rights begin where the US Constitution ends.

Every state or local law or ordinance which requires registration, licensing, fees, training, certification, or any other restriction on ownership or carrying (keeping and bearing) of weapons (arms) constitutes an infringement of the "right to keep and bear arms".

And BTW, I think "keep" cannot be considered to only apply to one's home. There is nothing in the 2A about where the arms must be kept.

Again the lovely Miriam Webster saith:

1keep
Function:
verb
Etymology:
Middle English kepen, from Old English cēpan; perhaps akin to Old High German chapfēn to look
Date:
before 12th century

...
4 a: to retain in one's possession or power <kept the money we found> b: to refrain from granting, giving, or allowing <kept the news back> c: to have in control <keep your temper>

So "keep" arms means to "retain [arms] in one's possession or power" which seems to me includes the carrying of arms within the definition of "keep".

When considering M-W's definitions of "bear" I wonder if "keep and bear" are to be taken as a single idea, wherein "keep and bear" are essentially synonyms in this case, used together to emphasize or clarify the intent:

2bear
Function:
verb
Etymology:
Middle English beren to carry, bring forth, from Old English beran; akin to Old High German beran to carry, Latin ferre, Greek pherein
Date:
before 12th century

...
— bear arms
1: to carry or possess arms
...

I find it interesting that M-W has an entry for "bear arms" which applies the term "bear" with a different definition when the object of the verb is "arms".

 

[El Tejon]

Do you think it's possible that all of the discrepancies from state to state as well as with states and cities that don't allow CCW or open carry at all can be cleared up with a SC case that determines what the "and bear" means?

Yes, but it is several waves of litigation in the future.

Heller will not address the NFA, incorporation, the prohibition of felony status, carry licenses, .45 v. 9mm, which gun for bear or puma, best AR-15, or any of the 100 threads I have seen about Heller.

 

[brighamr]

If the 2nd amendment were written:

"Every single individual man, woman, or child, has the right to keep, own and use every weapon, firearm or tool useful in self defense ever constructed; in any manor that individual seems fit"

People would still say it's a collective right....

If you buy a HOT cup of coffee and spill it, you can sue the company because the word HOT was only written on the cup 200 times, and not 300. This is the society we live in today.

 

[El Tejon]

"Every single individual man, woman, or child, has the right to keep, own and use every weapon, firearm or tool useful in self defense ever constructed in any manor that individual seems fit"

People would still say it's a collective right....

What if you live in an apartment and not a manor?

Obviously, from the language of the amendment, the RKBA only applies to the wealthy in manors.

 

[brighamr]

El Tejon - you got me! lol

and that's exactly how it would be interpreted in today's courts, I am sure

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

what does the terms arms mean legally? not what the found fathers wanted it to mean, since they are long dead and we can't ask them.

Fortunately for us, we don't have to ask them; they took copious notes, many of which have been preserved and passed down to the present day. Arms means "every terrible implement of the soldier."

 

[El Tejon]

brig, sorry, could not help myself.

 

[leadcounsel]

The language is simple yet people want to read so much into it. Individuals can own (keep) and carry (bear) military grade personal weapons (arms) without persecution of the government (shall not be infringed). It isn't granting the right soley for times of national security or war, it's recognizing that having people (individuals) owning and bearing them will PREVENT war through DETERANCE.

All of this philosophical discussion is just wasted breath.

I hope the SCOTUS gets this one right.

 

[ilbob]

Heller will not address the NFA, incorporation, the prohibition of felony status, carry licenses, .45 v. 9mm, which gun for bear or puma, best AR-15, or any of the 100 threads I have seen about Heller.

I would have thought that was the next logical case.

Personally, I hope incorporation comes up well before NFA. I think it will be much easier for the courts to rule on incorporation if NFA issues do not muddy things up a lot.

Unfortunately, I suspect about 10:30 a.m. next Monday, there will be an NFA case filed.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Unfortunately, I suspect about 10:30 a.m. next Monday, there will be an NFA case filed.

And probably pro-se at that...

 

[mekender]

since the courts have ruled in the past that CCW was a states rights issue, the only thing left in the 'to bear' part of the second amendment is open carry... without a reversal of that ruling, CCW will remain the patchwork of confusing laws that it is today...

 

[Quick Karl]

All of these arguments are pointless, The fact IS for the first 125-years of our history, everyone KNEW what the second amendment meant, and now we have a group of self-appointed superior intellectuals that want to redefine what was plain-as-day, so that The People can NOT rise up against them, and their entitlement/nanny-state constituents.

And that is the bottom line.

 

[hugh damright]

Do you think it's possible that all of the discrepancies from state to state as well as with states and cities that don't allow CCW or open carry at all can be cleared up with a SC case that determines what the "and bear" means?

By looking up the words "people" and "bear" in Webster's 1828 dictionary, it seems to me that there are two constructions of the term "the right of the people to bear arms":

(1)"the right of persons in general to keep and carry arms"

(2)"the right of "the body of persons who compose a community" to keep and "possess and use [arms] as a power"

To me, the 2nd construction seems to fit better. It seems to make great sense to say that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the body of people to rise up as one and use arms as a power shall not be infringed. And it just doesn't seem to fit as well to say that a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of persons in general to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed.

If the SCOTUS defines "bear", I think they would define it to mean anything BUT a right of the people of each State to rise up as one and use arms as a power to reclaim their sovereignty. After all, the Second Amendment is supposed to be a limitation upon the federal government, and when we ask them to define such things, it gives them an opportunity to define their own limits. I assume they would define it to mean something like it meant when Virginia was under military rule - that we have an individual RKBA, and nothing more.

Further, if the federal government clears up the discrepancies from state to state such that we have national carry laws, I think it is given that they will become despotic. As a Virginian, I like the discrepancies from state to state, and I see them as protecting Virginians from the despotic gun laws that people of other States pass.