Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms only Exists within Your Home

The new Anti argument – The US Constitution only Guarantees the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Home.

We have seen this argument from the Brady Bunch in Ed Peruta’s suit in San Diego, and the same argument from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office.

From the Brady brief in Ed's case:

...The Court’s (SCOTUS) holding is specifically limited to the right to keep firearms in the home...

Brady Bunch Link: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.308678/gov.uscourts.casd.308678.37.1.pdf

From the Md case:

Gansler said that the two Supreme Court opinions only guarantee people the right to keep handguns in their homes for self defense. He argued neither ruling affects a state's ability to protect public safety by regulating when people can carry guns in public.

Md. Link: http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=2073003

This is really the key issue for Open Carry: Does the constitution give you the right to openly carry a firearm outside of your home? We really have to win this question, or Open Carry will be a state by state right, not a federal constitutional right.

This will have to be another case all together to define, or extend the right to "Bear" arms as well as "keep" arms, as was done in Heller. It'll happen, but when is anyone's guess. I suspect Gura will tackle this sooner or later.

Bobarino said:

This will have to be another case all together to define, or extend the right to "Bear" arms as well as "keep" arms, as was done in Heller. It'll happen, but when is anyone's guess. I suspect Gura will tackle this sooner or later.

Click to expand...

Gura has already done this, even prior to the MacDonald decision in DC. We have been waiting for many, many months now for a decision. (The black robed kritocrat-Judge Kennedy of the DC Federal District Court, doesn't seem inclined to render any decision, even a bad one)

Link: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...he-District-of-Columbia&p=1369488#post1369488

In McDonald Justice Alito used the below words when speaking about self defense in the home, but his phrasing would indicate Gansler is wrong. He certainly seemed to say that there is more to SD than just in the home. read the last sentence

alito dicta
"Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,15 and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. 554
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at56) (stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”).
Explaining that “*_the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home,_* ibid., *_we found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred_*
firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (noting that handguns are “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose” of self-defense); id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) (“[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon”). *Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”*"

Please read the last sentence. "For the core lawful purpose of self-defense." Does this say WHERE, Or am I dead wrong?
***************

The antis tend to ignore context when it creates meaning that they do not like.

Thundar said:

This is really the key issue for Open Carry: Does the constitution give you the right to openly carry a firearm outside of your home? We really have to win this question, or Open Carry will be a state by state right, not a federal constitutional right.

Click to expand...

Well actually no.. the Constitution gives no such right at all. Nor does it give any other rights of any type or description and neither does the Bill of Rights give any such rights in any way, shape, or form. What the Bill of Rights does do is protect rights which are ours by virtue of our birth, against any intrusion, constriction or restriction, or elimination by the government. This is a critical concept in that it removes any idea that government, or a founding document, gives Americans any rights at all. Very critical, indeed. We don't want to play into the hands of those who would convince others if they are able, that rights come from the Constitution and/or from government when nothing is further from the truth.

SouthernBoy said:

Well actually no.. the Constitution gives no such right at all. Nor does it give any other rights of any type or description and neither does the Bill of Rights give any such rights in any way, shape, or form. What the Bill of Rights does do is protect rights which are ours by virtue of our birth, against any intrusion, constriction or restriction, or elimination by the government. This is a critical concept in that it removes any idea that government, or a founding document, gives Americans any rights at all. Very critical, indeed. We don't want to play into the hands of those who would convince others if they are able, that rights come from the Constitution and/or from government when nothing is further from the truth.

Click to expand...

You are right about my premise. The constitution does not give rights.

How is this: Will state and federal courts sanction state and local laws that limit our right to keep and bear arms to our homes?

Thundar said:

You are right about my premise. The constitution does not give rights.

How is this: Will state and federal courts sanction state and local laws that limit our right to keep and bear arms to our homes?

Click to expand...

Nothing would surprise me since I've seen so many of our rights infringed upon in my lifetime. Our only hope against something like this ever happening, assuming a very aggressive anti-gun congress, executive, and judicial branches, would be for the states to ban together and essentially tell the feds that they have gone too far and they had better take a few giant steps backwards. Unfortunately, the frog-in-the-pot syndrome is how these evil people instill their insidious designs upon us Americans.

Explaining that “*_the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home,

Click to expand...

"Most acute in the home" means it's needed there the most, but does not exclude other places, i.e., outside the home.

SouthernBoy said:

Well actually no.. the Constitution gives no such right at all. Nor does it give any other rights of any type or description and neither does the Bill of Rights give any such rights in any way, shape, or form. What the Bill of Rights does do is protect rights which are ours by virtue of our birth, against any intrusion, constriction or restriction, or elimination by the government. This is a critical concept in that it removes any idea that government, or a founding document, gives Americans any rights at all. Very critical, indeed. We don't want to play into the hands of those who would convince others if they are able, that rights come from the Constitution and/or from government when nothing is further from the truth.

Click to expand...

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
I often wonder WHY it is that people refuse to state that these rights come from the Supreme Being, The CREATOR. Our founding Fathers knew it, and stated it as such quite often. "with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our Sacred Honor."

To think that "The right to keep and "bear" arms means anything BUT anywhere, anytime, and in any method is just sheer idiocy. I cannot understand these people that think they can argue away God-given rights, it just baffles me.

The reason Heller focuses on in-home RKBA is because that was the question before the court. I cannot recall anything in Heller definitely limiting RKBA to the home.

southernboy said:

well actually no.. <snip> we don't want to play into the hands of those who would convince others if they are able, that rights come from the constitution and/or from government when nothing is further from the truth.

Click to expand...

amen!!

the problem with any court decision being rendered is the inability of some people to recognize how it's applied to constitutional law. For instance, in another forum argument on gun control, one anti gun person claimed that the constitution does not prohibit licensing in order to carry a handgun because licensing is not prohibiting. When presented with Murdoch v. PA, said poster ridiculously stuck to the exact issue in the case law that meant no state could charge a license, fee, or tax against free speech or religious expression.

anyway, just my non-sensical rant for the day.

Please read the last sentence. "For the core lawful purpose of self-defense." Does this say WHERE, Or am I dead wrong?


Stated in the Constitution. Confirmed by the current court. What could be more clear?

Another way to look at this would be to ask the question, "Do any of the other rights guaranteed in the BoR's have geographical(or any other physical) boundaries placed on them"?

They manner in which the courts have been able to get away with this is through the concept of interpretation. When one interprets something, they tend to do so using their own life experiences, their biases, their points of reference to the many things associated with an issue, and current and contemporary vernacular. It's human nature and virtually impossible to avoid. So these simple and elegant 27 words can be twisted and turned into meanings not only completely outside of the Founders' intent, but more dangerous, can be limited to the point ofbecoming meaningless, insignificant, and even socially distasteful.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

However, one would think that anyone reading them who has enjoyed a classic primary and secondary education would have no problem not only understanding the correctly worded English, but have no problem knowing what the intent was meant to be. As was pointed out, there is nothing there regarding domain, geographical or otherwise, permit requirements, licensing, or any other restrictions to keep the people from being armed and able to bear arms. The Founders knew exactly the "what and why" of this amendment and for us to try to second guess them is the vanity of arrogance in the worse case.

The courts, the state legislatures, the congress, and the executive branch have been trying for many years to not only find a different meaning to these 27 words, but to also ignore what those words really mean and to show contempt and displeasure with the Second Amendment. The camel's nose under the tent started two centuries ago and keeps rearing its ugly head as it tries to bring its entire family to the party. They hate this amendment, they find it embarrassing and antiquated, and they most just want it to go away. It is up to us, and other Americans like us, to see this never comes to pass.

Emphasis added throughout

Heller Decision said:

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 “urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate:
‘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.’ ”

Click to expand...

Heller Decision said:

If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”).

Click to expand...

Heller Decision said:

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

Click to expand...

Heller Decision said:

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defense” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced...

Click to expand...

Heller Decision said:

Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defense of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”

Click to expand...

Heller Decision said:

In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid.

Click to expand...

Taken together, the "only within your home" arguement is utter nonsense, unless one is a total agorophobe (fear of open spaces). There is neither any express or implied restriction on the location or method of carrying firearms in either the original text of the Constitution or any of its amendments.

There's only one qualifier, and that isn't a restriction, but a purpose, a substantiating reason why the right to keep and bear arms was put to paper: It's because it's necessary to the security of a free state.

What they argue is that a state's police power is greater than your constitutional right to keep and bear arms outside your home. It isn't as absurd an argument as many here think, because there is some point where police power is greater than individual liberty.

Please no flaming me. I think the gun grabbers are wrong, but that doesn't mean they won't put up this argument before freedom hating statists in blkack robes that will accept any argument that limits your right to keep and bear arms.

Thundar said:

What they argue is that a state's police power is greater than your constitutional right to keep and bear arms outside your home. It isn't as absurd an argument as many here think, because there is some point where police power is greater than individual liberty.

Please no flaming me. I think the gun grabbers are wrong, but that doesn't mean they won't put up this argument before freedom hating statists in blkack robes that will accept any argument that limits your right to keep and bear arms.

Click to expand...

It is an absurd argument, but it is an argument for the consolidation of power. As such those who want absurd amounts of power think it wonderful.