Open Carry Bans Unconstitutional? - Page 5

SelfDefense · July 7th, 2008, 10:51 PM

Gregg Jackson articulates the message very well. It is on a different subject (no less controversial) but a very good read. Those who pray to the courts to defend and enforce their views are praying to a false idol, Second Amendment included. The Court must be stripped of their perceived power and return the real power to where it belongs: THE PEOPLE

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/G...l_fifty_states

Rock and Glock · July 8th, 2008, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goawayfarm

THIS NEXT PART I FIND IRONIC.....anybody else notice why?

Quote:

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 “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: '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.’ ” p.10

Quote:

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. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. 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.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”
The only part that will hurt our cause is how this next part gets interrupted:

Sure, the Majority Opinion cited Ginsberg in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998). Ginsberg was in the Minority in Heller.

Interestingly, I find the question of "Incorporation" in the 14th quite ironic. The conservative Justices tend to want any arguments for incorporation very narrow, even though in this case it would be contrary to their opinion in Heller (e.g. contravention), whereas the more liberal Justices tend to interpret the 14th more broadly, thus in contradiction of their minority opinion in Heller.

That would be an interesting dance to watch. Maybe Chicago, Illinois, SF, California, Boston, or MA will step up to the plate!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 7th, 2008, 10:51 PM	#41
SelfDefense Distinguished Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Tucson Posts: 1,526	Gregg Jackson articulates the message very well. It is on a different subject (no less controversial) but a very good read. Those who pray to the courts to defend and enforce their views are praying to a false idol, Second Amendment included. The Court must be stripped of their perceived power and return the real power to where it belongs: THE PEOPLE http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/G...l_fifty_states