Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
"Carry... in case of a conflict with another person."
Countering the pronouncements heard that "bear" arms is only used in a military context, thereby restricting that portion of the Second Amendmen, is this legal opinion:
Surely, a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment (" keep and bear arms"
and Black's Law Dictionary 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 and defensive action in case of a conflict with another person."
-- Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Muscarello v U.S. 524 U.S. 125, (1998) (Ginsburg, dissenting)
This case narrowly decided that "bear" included an automobile's glovebox, and qualified thereby for mandatory sentencing. (Evidently, the plaintiff had been sentenced for illegally "bearing" an arm.) Ginsburg dissented from this broad definition, believing that "carry" was more restrictive as per Black. She did not object to the widely-held notion that such carry was for more than military purposes.