DMMickey
The right to
bear those arms IS addressed directly in the Opinion of the Court on page 19:
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
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:
Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer
authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal
Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate
for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but
the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the
Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking,
on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city
from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns,
the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying
of a firearm in the home without a license, and the
trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of
“functional firearms within the home.”
Scalia describes rendering it inoperable is an infringement on 'bearing' those arms.
from p.57
That was so even though
the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid.
See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A
statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts
to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be
so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose
of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
...........................Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popu-
lar weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the
home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
We must also address the District’s requirement (as
applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the
home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This
makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
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......
Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation.
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.