Or states repealing public accommodation laws.
Guess what, you’re not. The facts are against you.
Wrong. The word means what it meant when the Constitution was penned. It is cast in stone in the year 1789.
No, the proper recourse is to do exactly as they did … refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law. If you don’t like it, you can file a suit demanding that they enforce the law.
The difference is that voting is not an uninfringable right. And proving who you are by showing a bonfide ID before you vote actually protects the sanctity of the vote; it does not inhibit it.
I agree.
I just want a lib to explain the difference. Since they seem to fight against the legal one tooth and nail, and fight for the illegal infringement just as vehemently.
Good Lord.
Yes, but what does that have to do with it?
Everyone who reads it apparently.
As you’ve been advised repeatedly, read the Heller Decision.
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on *Sundays* , &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, *e.g.* , An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally *State* v. *Duke* , 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence *generally* made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist … shall or may have or keep in his House … any Arms … ”); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that required militia members to “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16–17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file complaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an employment-related connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else. 7
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 “[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.’ ” 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.
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](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) : 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** ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#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.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also *id.* , at 157 (equating[Second Amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.[ **9** ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#9) These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
We had just fought a revolution and it was fought primarily by men showing up to do battle with the weapons and equipment they could carry which they kept at home which did not include ordnance.
Grenades are ordnance.
No, they haven’t. They keep passing laws which violate the very premise of the 2nd.
Scalia was very specific with his examples, he did not give the states Carte Blanche to gut the 2nd.
Oath Keepers are the enemy. Remember?
Voting has always been a heavily restricted privilege reserved only for eligible citizens.
Neither does registration.
1 Like
So grenades can’t be carried?
I’m sorry that you don’t understand the difference between a weapon and a vote.
1 Like
Nonsense. By definition being required to register in order to avail oneself of a right is an infringement on that right. In fact, if permission from the government is required for you to use a right, it is no longer a right, it is a privilege.
1 Like
Sorry filling out a form saying what you bought is not an infringement.
Of course it is. Any impediment is an infringement.
No its not, so guns should be free?
