AlabamaFamilyMan
Member
bearing arms
I find it very interesting, as well, that while specifically not deciding about
carry outside the home, he pretty much seems to say you can.
"Since D.C. Code § 22-4504 (prohibition against carrying a pistol without a
license) and D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 (disassembly/trigger lock requirement) would
amount to further conditions on the certificate Heller desires, Heller’s standing to
pursue the license denial would subsume these other claims too." on page 8 of
the decision.
At the end, specifying only in-home, he decides against these statutes as well
as individual rights. Thus, it seems, he MIGHT favor unlicensed carry.
Also, he goes into "First, the word “bear” in this context is simply a more formal
synonym for “carry,”" in some depth (p.24).
And he mentions that by D.C.'s own argument, "The District appears to claim
that “keep and bear” is a unitary term and that the individual word “keep”
should be given no independent significance. This suggestion is somewhat
risible in light of the District’s admonishment, earlier in its brief, that when
interpreting constitutional text “every word must have its due force, and
appropriate meaning; . . . no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly
added.” Appellees’ Br. at 23 (quoting Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S.
(14 Pet.) 540, 570-71 (1840)). Even if “keep” and “bear” are not
read as a unitary term, we are told, the meaning of “keep” cannot be
broader than “bear” because the Second Amendment only protects the
use of arms in the course of militia service. Id. at 26-27. But this proposition
assumes its conclusion, and we do not take it seriously."
The judge may not take it seriously, but could we use the argument that
DC said themselves that since keep cannot be broader that bear, if you can
keep it you can bear it?
And, he spends much time on military small arms being much of the intent of
the wording. Such as referring to the Baretta pistol. Now, I know they make
revolvers, but he seems to be referring to the 92F that was the side-arm of
choice for the military for a while.
I find it very interesting, as well, that while specifically not deciding about
carry outside the home, he pretty much seems to say you can.
"Since D.C. Code § 22-4504 (prohibition against carrying a pistol without a
license) and D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 (disassembly/trigger lock requirement) would
amount to further conditions on the certificate Heller desires, Heller’s standing to
pursue the license denial would subsume these other claims too." on page 8 of
the decision.
At the end, specifying only in-home, he decides against these statutes as well
as individual rights. Thus, it seems, he MIGHT favor unlicensed carry.
Also, he goes into "First, the word “bear” in this context is simply a more formal
synonym for “carry,”" in some depth (p.24).
And he mentions that by D.C.'s own argument, "The District appears to claim
that “keep and bear” is a unitary term and that the individual word “keep”
should be given no independent significance. This suggestion is somewhat
risible in light of the District’s admonishment, earlier in its brief, that when
interpreting constitutional text “every word must have its due force, and
appropriate meaning; . . . no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly
added.” Appellees’ Br. at 23 (quoting Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S.
(14 Pet.) 540, 570-71 (1840)). Even if “keep” and “bear” are not
read as a unitary term, we are told, the meaning of “keep” cannot be
broader than “bear” because the Second Amendment only protects the
use of arms in the course of militia service. Id. at 26-27. But this proposition
assumes its conclusion, and we do not take it seriously."
The judge may not take it seriously, but could we use the argument that
DC said themselves that since keep cannot be broader that bear, if you can
keep it you can bear it?
And, he spends much time on military small arms being much of the intent of
the wording. Such as referring to the Baretta pistol. Now, I know they make
revolvers, but he seems to be referring to the 92F that was the side-arm of
choice for the military for a while.
