PDA

View Full Version : Justice Ginsburg's Deffinition of Bear; From a SCOTUS Case


anthonyca
03-25-2011, 6:53 PM
http://volokh.com/2011/01/27/air-guns-not-arms-for-second-amendment-purposes/

The Volokh Conspiracy is a great site. I have tried to join so I can comment but they don't seem to want me.

I found the following from an air gun case out of NYC. Interesting, SCOTUS states.

This Court begins, as Heller did, with the meaning of the word “arms” and of the phrase “bear arms.” According to Heller, “[t]he 18th-century meaning [of “arms”] is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined arms’ as weapons of offense, or armour of defense.’ [Citation omitted.] Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined arms’ as any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ [Citations omitted.].” for the phrase “bear arms,” the Court adopted Justice Ginsburg’s definition in Muscarello v United States, 524 US 125, 143 (1998), which it said “accurately captured the natural meaning of bear arms,’” that is, “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.’”

What do you guys think about this? Air guns are not arms? Why? Are they not powerful enough? A sword would be a classic and modern arm, correct?

On edit; The main point of the thread is about the meaning of bear and the defensive use of armour.

ElvenSoul
03-25-2011, 7:27 PM
Guess they have not seen the new new .357 Air Rifle.?

anthonyca
03-25-2011, 7:29 PM
Guess they have not seen the new new .357 Air Rifle.?

Or some of the Japanese air guns.

bulgron
03-25-2011, 7:35 PM
Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9WEsILY92o

Airguns certainly worked well for Lewis and Clark.

Uriah02
03-25-2011, 7:55 PM
Being a airsoft player I would not classify them under the same category as an "arm" under 2A. They can bruise, blind, and draw blood but they are not deadly weapons.

They can serve as excellent CQB training tools but I would never want an airsoft gun as a primary means of self defense like I would a pistol/shotgun. Like paintball, airsoft is used primarily for recreation, not self defense. I think it would be more detrimental to our cause than beneficial to include airsoft as an "arm".

anthonyca
03-25-2011, 7:55 PM
Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9WEsILY92o

Airguns certainly worked well for Lewis and Clark.

Amazing. Thank you.

Pete Albrecht
03-25-2011, 8:04 PM
I have only this to say about that.

http://www.frankandernest.com/cgi/view/display.pl?85-05-06

(There was another one, but I can't find it -- Frank -- or maybe it's Ernest -- is leading a large shaggy creature on a leash, and says "That free beer ad turned out to be a misprint")

bulgron
03-25-2011, 8:34 PM
Amazing. Thank you.

Here's another video about that air rifle, and how it was used by Lewis & Clark.

-pqFyKh-rUI&NR=1

ElvenSoul
03-26-2011, 3:17 PM
Just saw some pics of a guy taking a boar with a 458 Air Gun..impressive!

anthonyca
04-09-2011, 9:11 AM
Does anyone have a response to Ginsberg's definition of bear arms? What about the definition of armor being part of arms? That guy at the gun show saying they are going to ban body armor. SCOTUS says it's arms.

r3dn3ck
04-09-2011, 9:25 AM
so, since the 2nd amendment has been upheld by SCOTUS as an individual right extending to all citizens individually AND the definition of "bear arms" includes enumeration of the fundamental acts required to engage in concealed carry am I wrong in construing this to mean that they've (however unintentionally) de-legitimized the state level practice of issuing CCW permits. Since a right does not require a permit to be lawful to engage in the practice of it would seem to make sense.

yes, I understand the factual difference between current practice and what's actually legal under the restrictions of the COTUS but this seems to me that it's crying out for a test case and widespread civil disobedience.

BTW, how can a town say that UOC is prohibited there when COTUS protects the right to carry a concealed weapon? I know I'm missing something but I don't understand the local/state right to completely disregard COTUS/BOR/2A

DesertGunner
04-09-2011, 9:39 AM
So body armor is covered by 2A?

anthonyca
04-09-2011, 9:40 AM
so, since the 2nd amendment has been upheld by SCOTUS as an individual right extending to all citizens individually AND the definition of "bear arms" includes enumeration of the fundamental acts required to engage in concealed carry am I wrong in construing this to mean that they've (however unintentionally) de-legitimized the state level practice of issuing CCW permits. Since a right does not require a permit to be lawful to engage in the practice of it would seem to make sense.

yes, I understand the factual difference between current practice and what's actually legal under the restrictions of the COTUS but this seems to me that it's crying out for a test case and widespread civil disobedience.

BTW, how can a town say that UOC is prohibited there when COTUS protects the right to carry a concealed weapon? I know I'm missing something but I don't understand the local/state right to completely disregard COTUS/BOR/2A

That is my question too. I was hoping the right people can answer.

QQQ
04-09-2011, 1:45 PM
Being a airsoft player I would not classify them under the same category as an "arm" under 2A. They can bruise, blind, and draw blood but they are not deadly weapons.

They can serve as excellent CQB training tools but I would never want an airsoft gun as a primary means of self defense like I would a pistol/shotgun. Like paintball, airsoft is used primarily for recreation, not self defense. I think it would be more detrimental to our cause than beneficial to include airsoft as an "arm".

There's a big difference between an airgun and an airsoft gun.