Parker case at the High Road

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by Malum Prohibitum, Aug 13, 2006.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Six pages (as of today) of interesting reading. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=214203

    There are at least three people contending earnestly that the Second Amendment protects only the right to "bear arms" in the military context (i.e., bear can mean only military use or fighting, not carry or wear) and several contending that the amendment is a right only against Congress, while at least one contends it provides no right against Congress but only against States.

    Strange bunch over there.
     
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Fifteen pages. :shock:

    Still one guy earnestly contending that bearing arms can only mean in a military context.
     

  3. johnpeace

    johnpeace New Member

    96
    0
    0
    I have heard that argument too.

    To date, even though I know it's wrong (look to the words of the framers, their intent on the freedom of the people to be armed is clear), I am unsure of the best way to counter it.

    Could you give me some guidance/sources for countering that argument?
     
  4. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    The latest brief from the parker case does refute the military only "bear arms".
    I don't remeber exactly where but I do remember them providing quotes of founding fathers using "bear arms" in a non-military sense.

    http://www.gurapossessky.com/documents/ ... _reply.pdf
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    John, I placed a number of quotes right here: http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=344

    Although I cannot recall whether any of them bear directly on the question you asked. Some of them hit pretty close, though.

    Within the 15 pages in the link above (the post that says "6 pages as of today") are some quotes that bear directly on the subject. I know that the Pa. minority proposal uses the terms "bear arms" to refer directly to acts that were outside of a military context.

    While the minority proposal was defeated, there is no mention that the framers of the proposal used the language incorrectly.

    There are also several quotes in the Emerson decision, which I quoted in one of the two links above.