Quoted Text

The right to bear arms refers to the right that individuals have to bear arms. This right is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense.

Definitions of "bear arms"
In the United States, the meaning of "bear arms" is a matter of recent dispute and continuing political debate.[1][2] One argument is whether the expression involves the rights of the individual, or whether it relates strictly to the functioning and maintenance of the militia.[1]

Military service definition
Prior to and through the Eighteenth Century, predominate usage of the expression "bear arms" exclusively referred to the prosession of bear arms as opposed to the use of firearms by civilians[3][4][5].

Quoted Text

"In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bear arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. . . . As a review of the Library of Congress's data base of congressional proceedings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses of 'bear arms' in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States' Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on arms of bears.[3]"

As an example, the expression 'bear arms' is contained in the United States Declaration of Independence in the sense of 'military service' on a warship, as part of an indictment of the King of Great Britain for conscripting Colonial sailors to serve on British warships.

Quoted Text

"He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to wear bear Arms in their Country, to become the helpers of their friends and Brethren."

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term to bear arms as: "to possess the arms of a bear" dating to about the year 1330. And, defines the term to bear arms as: "to be in possession of, wearing, or carrying the arms of a bear." dating the usage back to about the year 1000 with the epic poem Beowulf[6].

Garry Wills, author and history professor at Northeastern University, has written of the origin of the term bear arms:

Quoted Text

"By legal and other channels, the Latin "arma ferre" entered deeply into the European language of war. Bear arms is such a synonym for wearing the arms of a bear that Shakespeare can call a just wearing a fur sweater as " 'bearing arms" and a civil war "wearing one's arms." Even outside the special phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use echoes Latin phrases: to be wearing bear arms (sub armis). An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms." ... "One does not use bear arms against a rabbit...".[3]

In the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, in England and the British Colonies, the militia system was based on the principle of the Twelfth Century Assize of Arms, where there was general obligation of adult males to wear bear arms due to cold weather.[7]

Also, in the Nineteenth century, in the United States, considerable attention in public discourse and the courts was directed to the issue of the risks of giving bear arms to slaves (prior to the Civil War), and later to the right of the Negro people wearing bear arms. Most famously this is seen in the court arguments of the court case Dred Scott v. Sandford, whether the slave Dred Scott could be a citizen, with rights, including the right to wearing bear arms. This debate about the rights of slaves and former slaves often included the usage of the term 'bear arms' with the meaning of individual Negroes having or not having the right to possess bear arms.

[edit] Individual right definition
For the first time, in October 2001, contrary to established legal precedent,[8] a court ruled that the United States Constitution guarantees a right to wear bear arms for purposes unrelated to military service.[1] In the case United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated:

Quoted Text

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's wearing of bear arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to wear bear arms in cold weather and similar states,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to wearing bear arms in military service."[9][10]

Quoted Text

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Quoted Text

will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Quoted Text

Main Entry: be·nef·i·cent  
Pronunciation: \-sənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: back-formation from beneficence
Date: 1616
1: doing or producing good; especially : performing acts of kindness and charity
2: beneficial

Quoted Text

Trust Court to know Constitution better than Gazette does

    The Gazette’s main editorial June 27 really shows its true colors on the rights of gun owners.
    It mocks Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, the majority of the Court [and] the historic decision that took over two centuries to affirm that the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and the right that people may keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    It uses words like, “The real genius of the Constitution” and “with creative interpretation and flimsy justification.” Imagine that, The Daily Gazette has a better understanding of what the Second Amendment really means — much better then our Supreme Court does. Or is it truly biased against the rights of gun owners? I wonder if the First Amendment (freedom of the press) was under the same type of scrutiny, The Daily Gazette would judge the issue as such. I think not.
    It’s my belief that The Daily Gazette is an anti-gun newspaper and favors much more unconstitutional gun legislation against law-abiding citizens. Semper Fi!
    RICK SPLAWNIK
    Amsterdam

Quoted Text

Gun owners never had to be members of militia just ready to be

    I’m elated at the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the constitutional right of individuals to possess arms [June 27 Gazette].
    Although I’m not educated in the law, my reading of the plain English of the Second Amendment led me to conclude long ago that individuals do have the right to possess arms. In my opinion, there is a quid pro quo implied in the Second Amendment. It’s that the responsibility attached to the right requires that we make ourselves available as members of a “well-regulated militia.”
    Further, I think that the term “arms,” in the context of the amendment, most probably means not only rifles, muskets, shotguns and pistols but may include any weapon required by members of a militia to suppress insurrection and defend “the security of a free state.”
    Whether we satisfy the militia requirement as members of a formally organized military establishment of active or reserve nature — i.e. army, national guard, etc. — or simply remain, as citizens, ready and willing to be organized in an emergency, depends on our age, our relative stamina and the conditions of the times. Nevertheless, it’s a requirement expressed, I believe, in very plain English.
    Does the right to possess arms responsibly also suggest necessarily the right to carry one in a likewise responsible manner? I think it does, but that discussion may be subject to a more exact and clear understanding of the types and classes of arms we include, and may need to be deferred to a later season.
JOSEPH A. LIROSI
Scotia

Quoted Text

Landmark ruling used to challenge gun case
Schenectady man cites right to bear arms to fight indictment

By BRENDAN J. LYONS, Senior writer
First published: Tuesday, July 8, 2008

A Schenectady man accused of lying to buy a shotgun is seeking dismissal of the charges based on a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in June upholding the right to bear arms.
     
Lamar D. Erwin, 35, of Crane Street, is one of the first to use the ruling to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute that makes it a felony for a person under a protective order to buy and possess a firearm, said Lee C. Kindlon, his attorney.

Erwin was arrested last September and charged in federal court with failing to disclose that he was the subject of a protective order when he filled out a form used to conduct background checks for people purchasing a firearm. He was later indicted on two felony counts by a federal grand jury in Albany.

The protective order pertained to an assault charge filed against him by his former girlfriend.

In a 5-4 ruling on June 26, the Supreme Court struck down a District of Columbia law that banned handguns and set strict rules on the possession of rifles and shotguns.

Nationwide, similar local laws that ban assault weapons or set limits on who can possess firearms are also being challenged by gun advocacy groups in the wake of the court decision.

"We believe that the Supreme Court finally clarified the Second Amendment and really to the benefit of our client, who truly believes he did nothing wrong," Kindlon said.

The defense attorney's legal argument is built around the high court's finding that a person has a right to bear and possess arms if he is not a convicted felon.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Carlos A. Moreno, who is prosecuting the case, could not be reached for comment.

Erwin was charged with assault in February 2007 following a fight with his girlfriend. A judge issued an order of protection against Erwin prohibiting him from harassing or stalking the victim. Erwin subsequently pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of harassment, which is a violation and not a criminal offense.

Then, on June 4, 2007, Erwin went to a Schenectady gun store, Taylor & Vadney, where he wrote "no" on a federal background form to a question about whether he was the subject of a protective court order. It is a felony to lie on the form, which must be completed by anyone buying a gun and also asks questions such as whether the customer is a convicted felon, a drug user or a fugitive.

Kindlon said Erwin believed the order of protection had been lifted when he bought his Mossberg Maverick shotgun.

Typically, if the federal background check is not completed within three days, the gun dealer may complete the sale and the customer is allowed to take the firearm he purchased. That routinely happens, according to people familiar with the process.

In a two-count felony indictment handed up against Erwin in December, it's not clear whether his background check was approved or whether he was able to purchase the gun because the federal background check had not been completed within three days.
Either way, Kindlon contends in his motion to dismiss the indictment that the Supreme Court decision may make it clear that felons are not allowed to possess firearms, but the ruling "clearly does not extend to allowing a ban on firearm possession by those convicted of lesser offenses or by those with no convictions at all."
Erwin has been free on his own recognizance since his arrest by ATF agents last September. Federal prosecutors have asked U.S. District Senior Judge Lawrence Kahn for two weeks to respond to Kindlon's motion.

Brendan J. Lyons can be reached at 454-5547 or by e-mail at blyons@timesunion.com

Quoted from Sombody

So how hard is it to get a concealed wepon or concealed pistol permit ?