Supreme court cases to back up the second amendment ?

Tom has some very reasoned opinions.

Yes, stool can mean excrement. So what? Does anyone honestly think the Founders may have meant the right to own, and large furry carnivores in the canine family, firearms? Or that bear and bare could be interchanged? Bear DID mean carry.

The fundamental purpose of the whole of the Bill of Rights is NOT to give the government rights or powers, but to LIMIT the government and enumerate rights of the PEOPLE. In NO way should it be so grossly misconstrued to read that the government could dictate or control to what extent that which was created to control and LIMIT that very same government itself.

Sure, there was disagreement as to the intent and wording of all the amendments. Somehow, someone misconstrued and twisted "no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled..." as to mean "give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples". The thoughts and words are completely contrary.

The Founders were not stupid enough to think the federal government should have the power to control some mythical state run "militia" when the 2nd specifically states the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. The meaning of the terms "militia" and "well-regulated" do differ from their current uses. However, a well-regulated militia was a capable and equipped group of citizens, acting for the common good, and NOT some drunken lynch mob.

That amendment was inserted specifically to prevent that very government from becoming tyrannical. They had NO intention to allow the government free rein over itself, over the the control OF and BY the people. Just as with the freedom OF religion and assembly and speech, owning firearms, is a basic right NOT to be limited by any federal or state or regional government entity.

The supreme court decides whether a law violates the constitution. It doesn't decide whether the constitution itself is right or wrong.

You say that you believe you should have this right. But do you know what it means?

A lot of people claim that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms. Their whole case for this is built around the fact that the verb “bear” can mean “carry” and therefore MUST mean carry. However “stool” can mean “poo”, so does “John sat on the wooden stool by the bar” mean that he sat on a “wooden poo” because stool can mean “poo”?

The reality is the founding fathers made clear what the right to bear arms means. It means “militia duty” and “render military service”.

August 17th 1789 the house considered what would become the 2A. They had a clause that was: “, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.” Then on August 24th 1789 they changed it to: “but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

And then switched back to the first one a few days later. It is clear that “bear arms” and “render military service are synonymous with each other.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/... in this document, the discussions, we can see the very same thing.

Mr Gerry said “Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head.” And “They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.”

And this is what Mr Jackson had to say: „Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."“

Again, clear that they were talking about being in the militia and NOT about personal self defence or anything like this.

Even George Washington in SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783

Said: "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

But now onto what the Supreme Court has said, and the Supreme Court actually agrees with me.

UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was considered the most comprehensive case on the 2A before 2008, but really didn’t say much in these regards, it could be interpreted however people wished.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

“We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

In this case they said the 2A does NOT protect people to drill in their own militia (ie, not the state militia). Bear arms clearly was not interpreted as “carry arms” in 1886.

U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) was a case that said the 2A does not grant a right, it protects the right from the federal govt.

ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897) says:“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

So, again, carrying arms is NOT protected by the right to bear arms.

Going to modern times, with District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) the court said:

“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.“

So it is saying the right is individual, and you don’t need to be in the militia to have that right. This is the right to keep arms, rather than the right to bear arms. Lawful purposes are clear, you can’t murder someone, you can go hunting. But carry and conceal and things are not included because you do need permits and the like in many states. Also the NRA supports carry and conceal permits.

Here’s the best bit “(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.“

They uphold Presser which says bear arms is not carrying arms. Basically the case was about an INDIVIDUAL v. Collective right for the right to keep and bear arms. However it’s clear that they have tried to avoid saying what the right is.

This came about because the Bush govt tried to put pressure on the Supreme Court with the MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. They attempted to show the individual right, and also that “bear arms” means “carry arms”, however they failed to do so.

They said “It is true that “bear arms” often did refer to carrying arms in military service.”

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) is the last important case. This case merely incorportated the 2A for the states. So now states have to adhere to the 2A.

So, all in all, you can see the Supreme Court does support an individual right to keep arms which is to own arms, and an individual right to bear arms, which is to be in the militia. It does not and never has supported a right to „carry arms“ which many people claim exists.

Go to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act...

That has many links to court cases, I can't think of ones to use.

"I am writing a paper"

No, you are not.