View Single Post
  #260  
Old 02-11-2012, 5:15 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,817
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter View Post
I seriously F'ing hate the games they get to play to suit their own political views. When it suits them, they same "based on the way SCOTUS ruled in the past..." when its suits tem the other way "well my magic 8 balls tells me SCOTUS would totally vote a different way in the future, so i'll go wit that"

As pistolero points out. If CC restrictions doesn't does infringe upon your right to carry, the only possible explanation is open carry is the standard, prefer, legal way to carry. there are no other options. If no carry were a option, they wouldnt have been specific with only one form of carry (concealed) .
There's also the counterpoint from Heller, a much more recent case than Robertson

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, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: `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.'" Id., at 143, 118 S.Ct. 1911 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed.1998)). We think that Justice GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms."
Reply With Quote