Let's see, I can go with the opinion of some anonymous internet poster or I can Read Scalia's Decision and go with what he had to say.. ..Hmm
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 “
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
Thanks, but I'm quite comfortable with my understanding of the 2nd Amendment.
Maybe if you actually READ it properly you'll see what they're doing.
1) They defined "bear" on it's own away from "arms".
2) They wrote "When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation."
3) They also wrote: "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.""
Number three is controversial to say the least. I've posted some of these state clauses.
Let's go have a look again.
I'm going to make the case that in the beginning they said people have the right to be in the militia to defend their state and the people within that state.
"1776 North Carolina:
That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"
So, NC says that they can bear arms "for the defence of the State". I mean, that's the very definition of what the militia is. The militia is there to defend the state.
"1776 Pennsylvania:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"
Here it gets a little more confusing. Defense of state and "themselves". What does "themselves" mean?
"1780 Massachusetts:
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."
MA has "common defence" which I'm going to say is "defence of themselves". That "themselves" (a plural) means "the people of the community, the state etc".
Because up until 1817 all the clauses were kind of similar. And "common defence" and "defence of themselves" comes up.
"1817 Mississippi:
Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State."
"defence of himself" as opposed to "themselves".
So, when the Supreme Court says: that "bear arms" is "carry of arms outside of the militia", they mean "armed for confrontation", as in, people are forming a militia outside of the State militia. They're not "bearing" (as in "carrying" arms). They said "for confrontation" and that's the meaning here.
4) They also said: "It is clear from those formulations that "bear arms" did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit."
No, not necessarily in an "organized military unit", it could also be a militia made up of the people outside of government control. Rather than just some dude walking around with a gun.
5) They also said: " The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war.""
The Supreme Court essentially say, and I'll summarize.
1) "bear" means lots of things.
2) "bear arms" can mean "to be in the militia", "render military service" "militia duty"
3) "bear arms" can mean "to be in a militia that isn't under state control".
NOW.... the Second Amendment does NOT have "common defence", "defence of themselves" or "defence of himself". It simply does not exist. Why would the Feds need this? This was essentially a state issue. The fed's issue was that they wanted to protect the militia. The militia as stated in article 1, section 8. The Militia the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (hence why it's a federal issue) could call up into federal service.
They protected the militia's weaponry and personnel. How does protecting some dude to carry his gun around all day have anything to do with the Federal government? It doesn't. It doesn't protect the militia, the 2A starts with the words "A well regulated militia...." that's what the Amendment is about.
If you actually READ what the Supreme Court has said in Heller and other cases, you realize it does NOT go against what I am saying, that "Bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty" and an individual has the right to be in the militia. Hence why the Dick Act made the "unorganized militia", so people could not demand to be in the National Guard.
