The SCOTUS has only affrimed on portion of the 2nd Ammendment; the right to keep arms. What of the right to bear arms? In the vast majority of cities, counties, and states it is illegal to bear arms in most places. In addition to making sure leftists do not impose outrageous taxes on ammo in an effort to control firearms we need to push for the second part of the 2nd; the right to bear arms.
SCOTUS ok keep what of bear arms?
- Thread starter hapkido
- Start date
We will most likely be spending 20 years "fleshing out" what will be known as the Heller decision. Chicago is already on the list and I'm sure it won't be the last gun control laws that are in court for a decision on the constitutionality of concealed carry restrictions, caliber bans (50 cal), action bans (semi-auto), and magazine capacity.
The good thing is that we're on the upswing now. It took many years to get all of the gun control legislation on the books, it will take a few to get rid of many of them.
The good thing is that we're on the upswing now. It took many years to get all of the gun control legislation on the books, it will take a few to get rid of many of them.
Scotus doesn't give us our rights. It merely affirms and clarifies them when they are called into question. The argument could be and has been made that the "constitutional right" to keep and bear arms is merely a clarification of the unalienable right to Life and Liberty.
As a side note, whether one likes or dislikes President Bush, he remains the only President in my lifetime that I have heard repeatedly reaffirm the fact that right to Liberty is unalienable and comes innately by our existence given by our Creator and is not the "gift" of a benevolent government, be it a president, a legislature, or a king. (Perhaps Reagan also said that, I don't remember, but Bush has made the point strikingly and repeatedly and I applaud him for that, if not for everything he has done or not done.)
As a side note, whether one likes or dislikes President Bush, he remains the only President in my lifetime that I have heard repeatedly reaffirm the fact that right to Liberty is unalienable and comes innately by our existence given by our Creator and is not the "gift" of a benevolent government, be it a president, a legislature, or a king. (Perhaps Reagan also said that, I don't remember, but Bush has made the point strikingly and repeatedly and I applaud him for that, if not for everything he has done or not done.)
The right to bear those arms IS addressed directly in the Opinion of the Court on page 19:
There is no word parsing required. In fact Scalia goes to great lengths leading up to this summation of the the meaning of the text of the Second Amendment and above is the now affirmed definition of the Second Amendment.
Carry is now a stated constitutional right, specified directly in the first bolded statement in the above quote.
emphasis mine
There is no word parsing required. In fact Scalia goes to great lengths leading up to this summation of the the meaning of the text of the Second Amendment and above is the now affirmed definition of the Second Amendment.
Carry is now a stated constitutional right, specified directly in the first bolded statement in the above quote.
Was his complaint not only that he couldn't get the required registration etc. amounted to a ban but ALSO that the requirement to keep lawful arms "disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" rendering them inoperable.
The first went to a ban on arms, the second on 'bearing' those arms. Both were challenge by Heller.
from p.2 of the Opinion of the Court:
Scalia describes rendering it inoperable is an infringement on 'bearing' those arms.
from p.57
By regulating that the weapons, although lawful (long guns), to be so borne as to render them useless for defense is unconstitutional.
Heller did complain that the bearing of long guns was infringed by the trigger lock/disassembled requirement, and it was determined "clearly unconstitutional".
I believe that Scalia is giving subtle hints by establish a precident in finding the right to bear arms in a way so as to deal with a confrontation....carry......
The first went to a ban on arms, the second on 'bearing' those arms. Both were challenge by Heller.
from p.2 of the Opinion of the Court:
Scalia describes rendering it inoperable is an infringement on 'bearing' those arms.
from p.57
emphasis mine
By regulating that the weapons, although lawful (long guns), to be so borne as to render them useless for defense is unconstitutional.
Heller did complain that the bearing of long guns was infringed by the trigger lock/disassembled requirement, and it was determined "clearly unconstitutional".
I believe that Scalia is giving subtle hints by establish a precident in finding the right to bear arms in a way so as to deal with a confrontation....carry......
and that challeges to laws restricting carry infringe upon that right. Carry, in my opinion would win the challenge and leave all jurisdictions no choice but to allow it. Nation wide carry insists that the 2nd be incorporated as it will then be almost defacto incorporation. At that point WHAT gets kept and borne become fair game and scrutiny would become strict.
Last edited:
Ok, but I consider that so small an aspect of "bearing arms" to be not worthy of mention. Isn't it safe to say that most people who have loaded firearms in their home do not generally carry them around, but instead depend on being able to get to a firearm and then briefly bearing said firearm in self defense before putting it down again?
The concept of government regulation over what you can carry around inside your home is a bit odd.
The concept of government regulation over what you can carry around inside your home is a bit odd.
I agree. Note he did not qualify the above with 'in the home'. That is however ONE of the arguments the jurisdictions will make. That their regulations OUTSIDE the home are reasonable. But the qualifier isn't made except when directly discussing the DC position.
I believe, and please note I keep saying 'believe' not 'know' or assert it as fact, that Scalia is guiding the future challenges and that is why he worked so hard on the BEAR aspect. He states outright:
No 'in the home' qualifier here either. More poignant is that he specifically uses the word 'carry'. Not store or posses....CARRY and carry IN CASE OF CONFRONTATION. He also does a good job of closing the loopholes jurisdiction would try to use such as unloaded (rendered inoperable for the core purpose of self defense..unconstitutional), with a trigger lock (same argument), and so on. He has all but made the case a matter of cut-and-paste from the PDF. He even went so far as to not only counter the dissenting arguments, but to almost lambaste their 'wrong headedness'. GIVING the challengers the answers for the potential questions from the Justice when the case is heard.
I believe, and please note I keep saying 'believe' not 'know' or assert it as fact, that Scalia is guiding the future challenges and that is why he worked so hard on the BEAR aspect. He states outright:
No 'in the home' qualifier here either. More poignant is that he specifically uses the word 'carry'. Not store or posses....CARRY and carry IN CASE OF CONFRONTATION. He also does a good job of closing the loopholes jurisdiction would try to use such as unloaded (rendered inoperable for the core purpose of self defense..unconstitutional), with a trigger lock (same argument), and so on. He has all but made the case a matter of cut-and-paste from the PDF. He even went so far as to not only counter the dissenting arguments, but to almost lambaste their 'wrong headedness'. GIVING the challengers the answers for the potential questions from the Justice when the case is heard.
Scrutiny
Many still miss what I consider the most important part of Heller - the scrutiny issue:
"The core issue of "judicial scrutiny" is now established -- better than we had dreamed -- in what will be known as Famous Footnote #27 (p56). Laws impinging on the Second Amendment can receive no lower level of review than any other "specific enumerated right" such as free speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy or the right to counsel (the Court's list of examples).
This is a tremendous win, and overlooked in all initial reviews I've seen. Attorney Mike Anthony was the first to spot it, way to go Mike. "Strict scrutiny," which many folks sought, is a term without formal definition that could prove problematic. I was hoping for a test of some sort and got more than I hoped for. By recognizing 2A as a "specific enumerated right" the majority ties 2A to the rigid standards and precedents of our most cherished rights. That's as strong as there is. Very clever indeed.
(From Alan Korwin, PageNine website)
This will still have to be tested, however, it severely restricts how far the tests can go. The "Very clever indeed" comment is, I believe, gross understatement of Scalia's intentions and ultimate plan... this is pure genius!
Howard
Many still miss what I consider the most important part of Heller - the scrutiny issue:
"The core issue of "judicial scrutiny" is now established -- better than we had dreamed -- in what will be known as Famous Footnote #27 (p56). Laws impinging on the Second Amendment can receive no lower level of review than any other "specific enumerated right" such as free speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy or the right to counsel (the Court's list of examples).
This is a tremendous win, and overlooked in all initial reviews I've seen. Attorney Mike Anthony was the first to spot it, way to go Mike. "Strict scrutiny," which many folks sought, is a term without formal definition that could prove problematic. I was hoping for a test of some sort and got more than I hoped for. By recognizing 2A as a "specific enumerated right" the majority ties 2A to the rigid standards and precedents of our most cherished rights. That's as strong as there is. Very clever indeed.
(From Alan Korwin, PageNine website)
This will still have to be tested, however, it severely restricts how far the tests can go. The "Very clever indeed" comment is, I believe, gross understatement of Scalia's intentions and ultimate plan... this is pure genius!
Howard
Read what hpj3 keeps posting everyone. Read it, re-read it..... re-read it and you'll get the biggest smile on your face you've ever had!
That footnote is what put me over the top with the huge win we experienced in the Heller decision.
The bear arms discussion was also extremely important and, when you put all the holdings in this decision together, we won BIG IMHO.
There will be incorporation arguments but the States cannot generally diminish rights established by the Bill of Rights. They can expand those rights but not diminish them.
The anti-gun crowd will have, what I believe is an impossible task, when they attempt to limit Heller to the District of Columbia only. It will be extended to the States IMHO.
Tidbit: I watched a roundtable discussion on TV yesterday. The moderator was an ACLU attorney and most of the "experts" were media reporters who follow the SCOTUS decisions, etc.
None of them mentioned footnote 27 and none of the people in the crowd (i.e., I assume more media types) challenged them on their rather weak understanding of the scrutiny aspect of the Heller decision.
For these "experts" to not mention footnote 27 bears heavily on my opinion that they are probably all, most likely, rabidly anti-gun. It appeared, by their general discussion of Heller, that they intentionally had their "heads in the sand" IMHO.
How a so-called regular reviewer and reporter of the SCOTUS decisions could miss this footnote points to a pre-conceived notion that Heller somehow gives anti-gunners some "wiggle" room with restrictions. Reasonable and intermediate restrictions are out the window if we refer to footnote 27 IMHO.
I laughed when they all felt restrictions could still be "reasonable" and incorporation might fail. They simply had their heads in the sand and were not forthright when explaining how far the Heller decision really went IMHO.
That footnote is what put me over the top with the huge win we experienced in the Heller decision.
The bear arms discussion was also extremely important and, when you put all the holdings in this decision together, we won BIG IMHO.
There will be incorporation arguments but the States cannot generally diminish rights established by the Bill of Rights. They can expand those rights but not diminish them.
The anti-gun crowd will have, what I believe is an impossible task, when they attempt to limit Heller to the District of Columbia only. It will be extended to the States IMHO.
Tidbit: I watched a roundtable discussion on TV yesterday. The moderator was an ACLU attorney and most of the "experts" were media reporters who follow the SCOTUS decisions, etc.
None of them mentioned footnote 27 and none of the people in the crowd (i.e., I assume more media types) challenged them on their rather weak understanding of the scrutiny aspect of the Heller decision.
For these "experts" to not mention footnote 27 bears heavily on my opinion that they are probably all, most likely, rabidly anti-gun. It appeared, by their general discussion of Heller, that they intentionally had their "heads in the sand" IMHO.
How a so-called regular reviewer and reporter of the SCOTUS decisions could miss this footnote points to a pre-conceived notion that Heller somehow gives anti-gunners some "wiggle" room with restrictions. Reasonable and intermediate restrictions are out the window if we refer to footnote 27 IMHO.
I laughed when they all felt restrictions could still be "reasonable" and incorporation might fail. They simply had their heads in the sand and were not forthright when explaining how far the Heller decision really went IMHO.