Does the second amendment protect your right to carry?

What does 2A protect?

  • Your right to bear arms fit to resist a tyrranical government domestic or foreign(Homeland Defense)

    Votes: 30 65.2%

  • Hunting, Self defense, home defense, and Homeland defense

    Votes: 16 34.8%
  • Total voters
    46
...with utmost expedition and secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy... all Military stores... But you will take care that the soldiers do not plunder the inhabitants or hurt private property.
Click to expand...

I think if you look at the issue in detail you will see the British went to a lot of trouble not to seize the personal arms of colonists. What was at concord was stock piles of powder and lead ball. They were also specifically after artillery pieces that were stored there, supposedly buried, although likely not in PVC:). Specifically several pieces that would have been effective in the bombarding Boston. Of all that the British did that day, the only thing they really destroyed or concentrated on were these pieces of heavy artillery. Soldiers that found other caches of musket balls etc. destroyed them, but the British were there for the cannons.

I have never seen anything to indicate that there were personal firearms seized from families responsible for quartering troops. On multiple occasions defectors traded their brown bess for passage out of Boston and colonists got tied up in treason charges.
 
One of the best analysis ever written about the meaning of the Second Amendment is in Justice Scalia's very thorough and definitive majority decision in the Heller case. You can get a copy here.
You might also look at the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens, who has apparently never heard of the Constitution.
 
I have never seen anything to indicate that there were personal firearms seized from families responsible for quartering troops.
Click to expand...
Look at "The Founders' Second Amendment, Origins of the Right to Bear Arms" by Stephen P. Halbrook (2008).
Just after Adams' editorial was published, it was reported in February 1769 that the inhabitants of Boston were being disarmed. After noting that "part of the troops had been quartered in the castle and barracks, and the remainder of them in some old empty houses," the report continued: "That the inhabitants had been ordered to bring in their arms, which in general they had complied with: and that those in possession of any after the expiration of a notice given them, were to take the consequences."
Click to expand...
(page 18)
There are other references to the relationship between quartering of soldiers and arms seizures in the first chapter of the book.
 
In my opinion the main purpose of the second amendment was to secure the peoples right to protect themselves from tyranny. The writers of the Constitution understood that people posessing firearms was vital to securing their freedom in any case, and when the government took them it was all over. A people can lobby and protest and vote and do whatever they can to resist tyranny, but when firearms are taken and the government/military still has them, then there is absolutely nothing a people can do to get rid of that government, its the final line pretty much.

I think that is why they wrote it as 'shall not be infringed'. They expected times to change as well as the weapons, but the principle will never change. The Nazis banned all but single shot rifles and shotguns. Compare that to a military with 5 round capacity bolt action rifles and sub machine guns. The civilians if they ever were to rise up against their tyrannical government, might as well not have any guns. Same principle here in America today. If it ever became necessary for people to fight a tyrannical government and their 'assault weapons' had been confiscated, then bolt action rifles and semi auto hunting rifles with 5 round mags don't really fare well against real assault rifles and machine guns.

The revolution was still fresh in the writers' minds, and I'm sure they were thinking of every way possible to keep the country free in the future.
 
From what I have read in the debates about the 2A was that the anti-federalists were afraid because the COTUS had done something unprecedented in that the Fed took control of the state militias. The antis were afraid that the feds might not sufficiently arm them and so wanted the provision to make sure they could arm them if the fed didn't. The militia had been under state control since their colonial charter and they were not happy about a central government controlling them. Thus the 2A and the right to choose the state militia officers. Since at that time the militia was thought to be the preferred way of protecting the nation and the states from insurrections and foreign enemies the personal right was kind of implicit. That was because the militia were required to furnish their own arms whn called upon. Of course, today that system is gone and so Heller had to decouple the two clauses because of the right of personal self defense.
 
I voted for the first because I was thinking original intent, with the second option as collateral thereto. I did not understand until after voting that the second includes the first and more. I'm an "all of the above" guy. Not asserting that the constitution explicitly dilineates some of the peripheral rights that come along with gun ownership, but they are appurtenant to whatever it is the 2A was supposed to protect.

To those who would doubt "carry" is embraced:

"keep and bear" - both, not one or the other, and not one only. We must interpret this to mean they are both included as different manifestations of the right and neither synonymous nor redundant. "Bear" generally means something to the effect of hold, bring or carry. Nowhere will you find a definition of "bear" that relates to storing something in your basement in anticipation of T*******I [unpopular abbreviation round these parts].

bear1   /bɛər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bair] Show IPA verb, bore or (Archaic) bare; borne or born; bear⋅ing.
–verb (used with object) 1. to hold up; support: to bear the weight of the roof.
2. to hold or remain firm under (a load): The roof will not bear the strain of his weight.
3. to bring forth (young); give birth to: to bear a child.
4. to produce by natural growth: a tree that bears fruit.
5. to hold up under; be capable of: His claim doesn't bear close examination.
6. to press or push against: The crowd was borne back by the police.
7. to hold or carry (oneself, one's body, one's head, etc.): to bear oneself erectly.
8. to conduct (oneself): to bear oneself bravely.
9. to suffer; endure; undergo: to bear the blame.
10. to sustain without yielding or suffering injury; tolerate (usually used in negative constructions, unless qualified): I can't bear your nagging. I can hardly bear to see her suffering so.
11. to be fit for or worthy of: It doesn't bear repeating.
12. to carry; bring: to bear gifts.
13. to carry in the mind or heart: to bear love; to bear malice.
14. to transmit or spread (gossip, tales, etc.).
15. to render; afford; give: to bear witness; to bear testimony.
16. to lead; guide; take: They bore him home.
17. to have and be entitled to: to bear title.
18. to exhibit; show: to bear a resemblance.
19. to accept or have, as an obligation: to bear responsibility; to bear the cost.
20. to stand in (a relation or ratio); have or show correlatively: the relation that price bears to profit.
21. to possess, as a quality or characteristic; have in or on: to bear traces; to bear an inscription.
22. to have and use; exercise: to bear authority; to bear sway.

–verb (used without object) 23. to tend in a course or direction; move; go: to bear west; to bear left at the fork in the road.
24. to be located or situated: The lighthouse bears due north.
25. to bring forth young or fruit: Next year the tree will bear.
 
you are correct in your definition of bear, but I believe when combined with arms as "bear arms," the phrase means more to the effect of going to battle. Maybe not, but it certainly seems I have heard the phrase used as such.
 
To assume such is to read additionally restrictive language that is not present into the right. I see where you're coming from but I think it's the starting point of the anti-gun slippery slope to start looking to unclear contextual combinations or alternative meanings. The words are there and make perfect sense on their face. It's followed by "shall not be infringed," about the most aggressive rejection of government regulation to be found. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law". That is focused on the legislative branch and leaves wiggle room for executive orders and judicial interpretation. "Shall not be infringed" is a far stronger condemnation of governmental meddling. I would have to say that is strong support for a broad interpretation for the 2A, which is why I subscribe to the clear, simple and broad definition I've put forth.

There's certainly plenty of good argument beyond that but I'm trying to keep it point blank to avoid spinning off into all sorts of tangential mental exercises and longwinded justifications.
 
Scalia in Heller said this:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top