Our militias could definitely stand to be regulated better

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. So, from this passage --

A man...might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms.

First, the court is addressing the issue of concealed weapons when it writes --

much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane

The case seeks to address the appellant's rights under the Texas state constitution, not the federal constitution of the United States as a whole.

Moreover, the ruling actually reaffirms the individual right to keep arms but upholds the right of the state to legislate against keeping arms in a concealed manner 9a rather awkward fact considering gun control advocates demand that no arms be carried openly) --

In the first article of the Constitution of this State, containing a declaration of rights, sec. 26, it is declared, "That the free white men of this State, have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence."

This declaration, it is insisted, gives to every man the right to arm himself in any manner he may choose, however unusual or dangerous the weapons he may employ; and thus armed, to appear wherever he may think proper, without molestation or hindrance, and that any law regulating his social conduct, by restraining the use of any weapon or regulating the manner in which it shall be carried, is beyond the legislative competency to enact, and is void.

The Brennan center is citing the Texas Supreme Court out of context. Here is a rather telling excerpt --

The section under consideration, in our bill of rights, was adopted (p.158)in reference to these historical facts, and in this point of view its language is most appropriate and expressive. Its words are, "The free white men of this state have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence." It, to be sure, asserts the right much more broadly than the statute of first William and Mary. For the right there asserted, is subject to the disabilities contained in the act of Charles the second. There lords and esquires, and their sons and persons, whose yearly income from land amounted to one hundred pounds, were of suitable condition to keep arms. But, with us, every free white man is of suitable condition; and, therefore, every free white man may keep and bear arms. But to keep and bear arms for what? If the history of the subject had left in doubt the object for which the right is secured, the words that are employed must completely remove that doubt. It is declared that they may keep and bear arms for their common defence. The word "common" here used, means according to Webster; 1. Belonging equally to more than one, or to many indefinitely. 2. Belonging to the public. 3. General. 4. Universal. 5. Public. The object then, for which the right of keeping and bearing arms is secured, is the defence of the public. The free white men may keep arms to protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution. The words "bear arms" too, have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution.

A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an "arm" in the figurative (p.159)use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to contend that a constitutional provision, securing to the citizens the means of their common defence, should be construed to extend to such weapons, although they manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because, in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?

Emphases mine.

Taking their citation with their intent then we are presented with a couple of issues --

First, the 2A reads, "the right of the people to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Brennan Center, like so many gun control advocates, omits what is inconvenient. Even if a person does not bear arms they are still explicitly at liberty to keep arms.

Second, if carrying a gun -- even for hunting -- is not the same as bearing arms then bearing arms appears to refer to the use of arms, not for hunting but for armed hostilities.

According to the Brennan Center's interpretation what they claim the TXSC is saying is the right of the people to engage in armed hostilities with weapons in common use and best suited for warfare against even encroachments by government shall not be infringed.

Perhaps the Brennan Center and its acolytes would do better to reconsider the full implications of their arguments rather than relying on the ignorance of their audience.

The full text of the ruling can be found here -- http://www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html