Did SCOTUS decide on Carry?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

I thought that Heller decided you must allow someone to carry but it did not define what type.


Am I wrong?





This is from the majority opinion in Heller I believe.



At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.


.

 

[GEM]

Short answer is NO. Heller did not void the restrictions on carry.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Heller addressed a broad range of topics in the ruling, which are in effect, seeds for victory in future cases.

The effect of the ruling itself, however, pertained only to the narrow and immediate issues brought up concerning possession of a handgun/firearm in the home in a condition suitable for immediate personal defense.

In so doing, the court confirmed that the individual has a right of arms of uncertain scope, that this right extends to handguns, that it's purpose is not dependent on militia service, and that it personal defense is a core aspect of that which is protected.

It is very likely that an eventual followup case will clarify that there is a right for sane/noncriminals to publicly bear arms for their personal defense, and it will probably take the form of asserting that the States must allow for some form of it, either Constitutional OC or shall issue/no BS permits. Then it'll get interesting when we get to the "full faith and credit" clause.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Heller addressed a broad range of topics in the ruling, which are in effect, seeds for victory in future cases.

The effect of the ruling itself, however, pertained only to the narrow and immediate issues brought up concerning possession of a handgun/firearm in the home in a condition suitable for immediate personal defense.

In so doing, the court confirmed that the individual has a right of arms of uncertain scope, that this right extends to handguns, that it's purpose is not dependent on militia service, and that it personal defense is a core aspect of that which is protected.

It is very likely that an eventual followup case will clarify that there is a right for sane/noncriminals to publicly bear arms for their personal defense, and it will probably take the form of asserting that the States must allow for some form of it, either Constitutional OC or shall issue/no BS permits. Then it'll get interesting when we get to the "full faith and credit" clause.

Never heard of that. What is that?





Does what is said in the majority opinion help future cases?



.

 

[belercous]

Art. IV, sec. 1 of the US Constitution. It means that court judgements of any particular state are to be recognized as valid in any other state. (debts owed, dissolution of marriage, etc.)

Although the language of the clause includes "public acts," SCOTUS has held that this does not always apply. An examples of a public act that would not neccessarily apply in another state is that of gay marriage. While a couple can be wed & considered married in some states, other states are not bound to recognize such marriage as it may be contrary to that state's public policy.

Another example would be a contract for prostituion, which would be a legal contract in Nevada, but no other state would recognize the contract as being contrary to their public policy.

What SCOTUS says in obiter dicta (those words in a majority opinion that do not address the issue before the bar) is often the basis for future rulings. Dicta is useful as to how the Court would rule in the future if such issue came before it.
Dicta is not binding since the issue(s) the Court speaks of have not been fully argued/addressed in the case. In Heller & McDonald that would be the "bear arms" clause of the 2A. The right to carry was not the issue before the Court in those cases.