From the Wall Street Journal Law Blog:
By Jacob Gershman
You might think the question would be settled by now, but the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to opine on whether the Second Amendment right to “bear” arms for self-defense extends outside the home.
We may soon get an answer. Lyle Denniston, writing for the Constitution Daily, reports about two gun rights cases that may get a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both cases, dealing with restrictions on the ability of minors to possess weapons in public, hinge on the difference between the right to “keep” a gun and a right “bear” one. The National Rifle Association thinks the issue is ripe for Supreme Court review. The justices are expected to discuss the cases next week and may then decide whether to grant review.
And yes, trust me, there is a massive arguable difference between “keep” and “bear.” You may think this is slight, but it may become the Crux of the Biscuit.
The point seems as this:
The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home. But it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home. If there is a separate right to “bear” a gun (and the Court, in fact, did say in 2008 that the two rights were separate), it has not said what that means.
WITHIN THE HOME. My quite specific emphasis.
Does that right extend outside the home?
And yes, that is a major question that needs reaffirmation.
The NRA says you can’t really ‘bear’ something in the privacy of your home. I submit, when the issue revolves around any firearm: the founders meant to “bear” a firearm in the defense of your investment surrounding and outside your home. Most everything but.
“The explicit guarantee of the right to ‘bear’ arms would mean nothing if it did not protect the right to ‘bear’ arms outside of the home, where the Amendment already guarantees that they may be ‘kept.”
Facts in evidence, assisted with clarity and logic.
Which is why this point is challenged.
BZ
P.S.
You may ask: why is it that I have been focusing on the Second Amendment so much these past few days when there are other, more allegedly immediate topics of interest to discuss with my readers and the nation?
An easy answer: because this nation will explode. There is an astounding erosion of the standard “rule of law” in this nation by the current White House occupant. It is on a death spiral that cannot be recalled, no matter how hard we want it or wish it or “hope” for it. Hope is for idiots. Preparation is for the intelligent. I’m certain you’re quite reading between these lines. I’m simply suggesting.
