...and bear arms?

[Hypnogator]

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.

At least, let's hope they don't!

Let's face it -- machine guns are the third rail of the gun rights movement. The Nine are horrified of the image of Dillon and Klebold with M-4s and frag grenades.

I've seen lots of posts expressing fear that the Court will rule very narrowly. I, for one, hope that they do. A decision saying, (1) The 2nd Amendment is an individual right and (2) DC's gun ban violates this right, so (3) the Federal Appeals Court ruling is upheld, would be the best possible outcome.

Then, follow-up cases before more gun-sympathetic courts (5th District) would have a better chance of fleshing out the "infringed" concept, and applying Miller dicta on suitability as militia weapons to modern automatic weapons.

 

[3KillerBs]

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.

If the Second Amendment does not mean exactly what the Founding Fathers intended it to me -- as they understood the terms they used* -- then there is no point to having a written Constitution in the first place.

*The meaning of the words at the time is readily available from the dictionaries of the era. The Library of Congress does not exist just to make sure your Senators can find a good paperback to read during their lunch breaks.

 

[TallPine]

"bear arms" -

1) a handgun no less than .44 magnum caliber

2) a centerfire rifle no less than .30 caliber

 

[Picard]

The problem is that the Supreme Court judges, as well as all judges who are anti, is that they have an anti-gun target in mind. They then try to interpret and skew the laws into conforming to their preset view, rather than approaching it and easily seeing it for what it clearly means. To them, bearing arms isn't an option because society has told them that it is a bad thing. They want the Constitution to not mean that, and the sad thing is that WE give them the power to change the meaning.

I feel like the fate of the nation may be decided within the next couple of days, and it's a scary thought.

 

[XD_fan]

40 years ago my civics teacher didn't seem to have any problem explaining the Second Amendment to us. I don't remember anything being said about the collective right BS. I do remember a lot of discussion about what "The People" meant. Probably some of the reason I have such a problem with so much of what is taking place these days.

Its hard to believe that some of my peers were exposed to the same educational system that I was.

 

[Zoogster]

"bear arms" -

1) a handgun no less than .44 magnum caliber

2) a centerfire rifle no less than .30 caliber

Now it is clear exactly what they meant!
They were refering to bears! Black bears have always existed.
Grizzly bears had a massive territory at the time, covering much of the current United States from the Canadian border to beyond the Mexican border.

Of course that entire territory of Grizzly range was not part of the United States until later, but the founding fathers just had forsight!
Bears could be a problem then, so the 2nd amendment was meant to allow people access to arms suitable against such bears.
The right to keep bear arms!


So now it is clear why places like CA, where the Grizzly Bear is even on the state flag no longer see a need to honor the 2nd. Those dangerous bears are gone now! Long since killed off.

No that is not a Communist state flag with the Red Star and a Russian brown bear. How could you think such a thing?!

(sarcasm)

 

[M203Sniper]

A good read here.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardhist.html


"The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States recognizes that "[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."

The second amendment to the Constitution had two objectives. The first purpose was to recognize in general terms the importance of a militia to a free state. This recognition derives from the very core of Classical Republican thought; its "constituency" among the Framers was found primarily among conservatives, particularly Virginia's landed gentry. Indeed, prior to Virginia's proposal, no federal ratifying convention had called for such recognition. The second purpose was to guarantee an individual right to own and carry arms. This right stemmed both from the English Declaration of Rights and from Enlightenment sources. Its primary supporters came from the Radical-Democratic movement, whether based among the small farmers of western Pennsylvania or the urban mechanics of Massachusetts. Only by incorporating both provisions (p.60)could the first Congress reconcile the priorities of Sam Adams with those of George Mason, and lessen the "disquietude" both of the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts minorities and those of the Virginia and New York majorities. The dual purpose of the second amendment was recognized by all early constitutional commentators;[264] the assumption that the second amendment had but a single objective is in fact an innovation born of historical ignorance."






"[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."

OR

An armed population of free men is necessary to the security of any Nation. The right of all people to Own and Wear arms shall not be infringed on.