SCOTUS - Asked to clarify what it means to "bear" arms.

[Shellback]

Hopefully they'll finally clarify the original and full intent of the 2nd Amendment. According to this article there are 2 pending SCOTUS cases that may address the issue.

The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home. But it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home. If there is a separate right to “bear” a gun (and the Court, in fact, did say in 2008 that the two rights were separate), it has not said what that means…

In a case from Texas, the NRA’s lawyers have reduced to elementary constitutional logic the question of what a right to “bear” guns means: “The explicit guarantee of the right to ‘bear’ arms would mean nothing,” the NRA’s filing argued, “if it did not protect the right to ‘bear’ arms outside of the home, where the Amendment already guarantees that they may be ‘kept.’ The most fundamental canons of construction forbid any interpretation that would discard this language as meaningless surplus.”

The NRA petition can be read here (PDF).

[TheRoland]

It doesn't say in the article, but the two cases are NRA v. McCraw and NRA v. BATFE. Both deal explicitly with 18-21 year-olds.

Neither sounds especially likely to work to me, compared to some of the cases the SCOTUS has already passed on. Not that predicting which cases get cert ever is productive, of course.

Article by the same author, I think, at SCOTUSBlog, here

[GardoneVT]

It doesn't say in the article, but the two cases are NRA v. McCraw and NRA v. BATFE. Both deal explicitly with 18-21 year-olds.

Neither sounds especially likely to work to me, compared to some of the cases the SCOTUS has already passed on. Not that predicting which cases get cert ever is productive, of course.

Article by the same author, I think, at SCOTUSBlog, here

I'm no Constitutional Law scholar, but I'd wager their decision would be in essence " Whatever Each State Legislature Decides."

Good news for some, and bad news for others .The fact that some state Constitutions don't have an enumerated Right to Keep and Bear Arms won't be ignored.

[Shellback]

It doesn't say in the article, but the two cases are NRA v. McCraw and NRA v. BATFE. Both deal explicitly with 18-21 year-olds.

Thanks for the additional info.

[RoyGBiv]

It doesn't say in the article, but the two cases are NRA v. McCraw and NRA v. BATFE. Both deal explicitly with 18-21 year-olds.

Neither sounds especially likely to work to me, compared to some of the cases the SCOTUS has already passed on. Not that predicting which cases get cert ever is productive, of course.

Article by the same author, I think, at SCOTUSBlog, here

I hold out hope that I've missed some nuance that makes this a bigger case than it appears at first blush.
Something tells me I'm missing some bigger meaning, otherwise, why would the NRA be point on both?

[ford.304]

I'm puzzled as well, from a strategic standpoint.

The court has long allowed states a fair amount of leeway in setting the age of majority for all sorts of rights. Lowering the voting age to 18 nationally took an explicit amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_v._Mitchell

If the court finds greater protection for the right to bear arms than the right to vote, I'll wear a pink tutu to work.

And the drinking age of 21 was upheld on grounds entirely unrelated to the specific age. The constitution itself sets specific age limits for various offices. I really don't see the court granting cert on any of these. The majority could completely ignore the 2nd amendment aspect and just hold that the states have broad leeway to regulate the age at which different rights come into effect.

[Dagga Boy]

I think my only question would be "is there an age when Constitutional rights do not apply. At what age do you have the right to free speech, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, etc...? Could a State decide that you do not have the Right to Free Speech until you are 25? I doubt it. So I can see the goal may be to both define "bearing of arms" and put that consistent with most other laws as those rights taking affect at age 18 (adulthood) that seems consistent with all other full rights.

[Don Gwinn]

Could be that's what the NRA likes about it--a win clearly establishes the right, but a loss might only apply to the specific age group 18-21. Less risk for the same reward. Nationally, they're pretty conservative and risk-averse in court, not without reason.

Here in the 7th Circuit, though, the federal courts are betting that there's an individual right to carry a firearm.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk HD

[GardoneVT]

Could be that's what the NRA likes about it--a win clearly establishes the right, but a loss might only apply to the specific age group 18-21. Less risk for the same reward. Nationally, they're pretty conservative and risk-averse in court, not without reason.

Here in the 7th Circuit, though, the federal courts are betting that there's an individual right to carry a firearm.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk HD

Unless the SCOTUS says each state can set the age and limitations on the right. In that event, New York State will doubtlessly require one be 45 years old before being eligible for a gun permit.

[joshs]

Unless the SCOTUS says each state can set the age and limitations on the right. In that event, New York State will doubtlessly require one be 45 years old before being eligible for a gun permit.

How would they do that? Either the challenged laws are unconstitutional, or they aren't. Anything else would be an advisory opinion, which the court is prohibited from issuing.

As far as the general merits of the challenges, there are very few historical examples of age based restrictions on the right to bear arms. Heller says that the test for whether something is protected by the Second Amendment requires a historical analysis, so acquisition and carry of handguns by 18-20 year olds should be protected. (Yes I realized that it does not logically follow that just because something was not historically prohibited does not meant that it could not have been prohibited, but we are stuck with this test, at least for now).