SSRN-What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment? by Clayton Cramer, Joseph Olson
This paper demonstrates that the Founding Generation did not understand bear arms as limited to military or collective militia duty but saw it as merely one way of expressing the concept of possession (as a modern speaker might say carry a gun).
Or Professor Malcom whom I have previously cited
Black's law dictionary wasn't written until a hundred years later.
So why wasn't the American legal term of art "keep and bear arms" defined in the eighteenth century? Because there simply weren't any dictionaries to define it in.
As for your quotations, I've already dispensed with them earlier in the thread. There is not a single one of those quotations that cannot be read to support my point as well as yours. They are, at best, hopelessly vague and at worst don't go to your point at all. It's nonsense and there is nothing there even close to law.
The Constitution says "keep and bear arms." That has a technical meaning, and nothing in your quotations disproves that.
Last edited by Guy Incognito; 11-19-10 at 10:24 PM.
The only possible way is if someone defined it somewhere - it doesn't have to be a damn dictionary.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm long has been the
leading authority on the historical English right to
arms. Her works include two books published by
Harvard: Guns and Violence: The English Experience
(2002) (“G&V”), and To Keep and Bear Arms: The
Origins of an Anglo-American Right (1994) (“K&B”).
The latter was cited below, Pet. App. 21a n.8, and in
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 938 n.2 (1997)
(Thomas, J., concurring); Antonin Scalia, A Matter of
Interpretation 136-37 (1997); and Whether the
Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right, Op.
Off. Legal Counsel, passim (Aug. 24, 2004) (“OLC
Opinion”), available at USDOJ: Office of Legal Counsel
opinions.htm; among other places. She has a Ph.D in
comparative history from Brandeis University, is a
Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and is
Professor of Legal History at George Mason
University School of Law
Amici therefore set out below the right to have and
use arms in English law by the time of the Founding.
Amici then show how early American authorities
claimed and extended that right, including in
interpreting the Second Amendment. The English
right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on
militia service; individuals might exercise the right
collectively, but the unquestioned core was a broadly
applicable and robust right to “keep” firearms in
one’s home for self-defense. Even the “wellrecognized
exceptions” confirmed this core right, by
focusing on the carrying, not the keeping, of weapons.
I cannot help but notice that Guy has flat out ignored -- refused even to acknowledge -- every single post I've made which have factually, irrefutably blown his deluded rantings out of the water. Pretended those posts weren't even there.
That is so, so, so sad.
Yet as the same time, hilarious as all hell.
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.