If you have it, post it. if you do not, do not.
Please also note that the court in Heller talks at some length of the "keep and bear" part of this argument.
How is it wrong?
You're being lazy. I'm sorry but you can reply to my post or not, whatever.
Yes, they talk about keep and bear. However I also know that even Supreme Court justices aren't experts in all areas of law. They were listening to two arguments, the DC side was just completely wrong, so they listened to the Heller side. They didn't necessarily get all of the information on this debate.
"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever "
They don't talk of keep and bear arms, they talk of keep and carry, as if carry means bear, when it does not.
However the Supreme Court justices aren't stupid, they know a lot more law than most people, and they also know how to manipulate their opinions in order to go towards their own bias. This is why cases aren't always 9-0 as you'd expect them to be if they're following the law as it "should be".
"Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12;
post, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it 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."
Here is a summary by Scalia about the two sides. Both contend that "bear" means carry, I say it doesn't. Now, Scalia uses carry in place of bear in his argument.
"No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the
Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”"
Ie, he's saying that because neither side made a case for "bear arms" to mean "render military service" that he's not going to bother actually consider it. Here lies a problem.
"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” "
This is a great argument (I'm being sarcastic). It's often used by people who want to misinterpret the 2A to mean "carry arms".
They say because it can mean "carry" it MUST mean "carry".
For example. "Stool" means a wooden object usually with three legs that you sit on, right?
"John went to the doctor who said he needed a sample of his stool". So because it can mean the definition I gave must mean it means this definition, or not? It would seem a little silly if I were to assume it is this definition.
They did look at other definitions
"When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. "
"bear arms" means something different to "bear +object"
"‘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.""
However here they're getting much closer to the truth, and I have to wonder why they rejected it, or at least pandered to the pro-gun side by using the term "carry arms" instead of "bear arms".
" In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. "
I'm not disputing this. However it's interesting that they don't refer to "bear arms" meaning "render military service" or "militia duty" as Mr Gerry and other founding fathers did. It's as if they know the truth but are deliberately avoiding it.
"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.” See Linguists’ Brief 18;
post, at 11 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But it
unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. "
Then they seem to be heading towards this, and then claim it needs "against", but like
Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution this isn't the case. They use the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" and "militia duty" WITHOUT against. So it seems odd that they would claim this.
However there isn't much difference between "bear arms" to mean the right to be in the militia, and "bear arms" to "of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person."
Are we suggesting that people who carry weapons are "ready for offensive or defensive action"? My interpretation of this meaning would be that someone knows something is going to happen, rather than just having a gun just in case something may happen.
What it interesting about all of this is that the Bush govt helped. The MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (
http://www.griegermd.com/secondamendment2[1].pdf here for example, page 16 onwards) they aimed to prove that the RKBA was individual.
The Supreme Court had this document and used it, clearly. What they didn't use were things like:
"It is true that “bear arms” often did refer to carrying arms in military service."
"Arms also could be “borne” for private, non-military purposes, principally tied to self-defense. For example, an early colonial statute in Massachusetts required every “freeman or other inhabitant” to provide arms for himself and anyone else in his household able to “beare armes,” and one in Virginia required “all men that are fittinge to beare armes” to “bring their pieces” to church."
Probably something like this had an impact. In fact some states included an individual bear arms which they spoke about in Heller.
"1776 Pennsylvania:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;"
For example PA, but they used the term with "defence of themselves", Vermont also used something similar. This could be ambiguous as to whether themselves was "the people" or "the individual".
Other states used it exclusively collective.
North Carolina "
XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; "
Massachusetts "XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. "
Then the memorandum again, they say at the end:
"In sum, although “bear arms” often referred to carrying or wearing arms in connection
with military duty, it was not limited to such a meaning."
So the Supreme Court took the "it was not limited to such a meaning" to mean more than the fact that even the Bush govt said it usually had connection with the militia.
Now. Here's the BIG problem.
What's an amendment about when it starts with "A well regulated militia....."?
It's about the militia.
CONTEXT suggests that "bear arms" means something like "render military service" and "militia duty" as used by the founding fathers in a document completely ignored by the Supreme Court when discussing the Second Amendment.
How on earth could this document be missed out? It basically takes all the Supreme Court looks at and puts it into context and makes it make sense.
This is where the Supreme Court was wrong, especially Scalia.
