NEW SUIT TO EXPAND FREEDOM OF GUN POSSESSION

Here is some good language, Thomas.
The Court never retracted this, never said it was rong:

" We start therefore with a strong presumption
that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually
and belongs to all Americans.

b. “Keep and bear Arms.”
We move now from the holder of the right"“the people”"to the substance of the
right: “to keep and bear Arms.”
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret
their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the
English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson).
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.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary
(1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary
of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter
Webster)" [All emphasis added by David]

I live in New York and I am an American,
therefore I have that right that "all Americans" have.

More to come. . . .

" Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American
Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997),
and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search,
e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35"36 (2001),
the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,
to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
[all emphasis added by David]

Thomas,
does this have the "ring" so to speak
of weapons that may only be worn in one's kitchen or bathroom ?

maybe just the bedroom ?

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause.

Putting all of these textual elements together,
we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons
in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.

We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments,
codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment
implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right
and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”

As we said in United States v.Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876),
“[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution.
Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed. . . .”16
[all emphasis added by David]

Thomas, where the USSC says "carry weapons
in case of confrontation" does it sound like it means
confrontation ONLY if that happens in your den or your attic ?

The USSC goes on to say:

" By the time of the founding,
the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects.
See Malcolm 122"134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said,
“constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the
founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999),
cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as
one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone
136, 139"140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be
thought to tie it to militia or military service.
It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and selfpreservation,”
id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for
self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140;
[all emphasis added by David]


Please note that by operation of the 9th Amendment,
all rights of Americans or of Englishmen as of 1776
were preserved and carried forward intact into the future.

The USSC goes on to say, as to the English Bill of Rights of 1689:

" Thus, the right secured in 1689
as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the
time of the founding understood to be an individual right
protecting against both public and private violence.
And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their
political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists.
In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s,
the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most
rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by
Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep
arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “t is a
natural right which the people have reserved to themselves,
confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for
their own defence.” A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17,
New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under
Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed. 1936); see also, e.g.,
Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings
of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968). They understood
the right to enable individuals to defend themselves.


As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s
Commentaries (by the law professor and former
Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes
to the description of the arms right, Americans understood
the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to
“repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in
his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”
1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145"146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter
Tucker’s Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the
Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31"32 (1833).

[all emphasis added by David]

It was the purpose of the 9th Amendment
to carry forward intact the rights of Americans and of Englishmen
that were in effect, as of 1776.

Here 's a pretty good insight in the thinking of the USSC, Thomas,
when it cites with approval:

" Even clearer was Justice Baldwin. In the famous fugitive-slave case of
Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 850, 852
(CC Pa. 1833), Baldwin, sitting as a circuit judge,
cited both the Second Amendment and the Pennsylvania analogue
for his conclusion that a citizen has
“a right to carry arms in defence of his property or person,
and to use them, if either were assailed with such force,
numbers or violence as made it necessary for the protection or safety of either.”
[all emphasis added by David]

Please tell me if u disagree,
but it seems to me that this was not intended
to be limited to the curtailment of federal jurisdiction,
nor to keeping guns ONLY within one 's home.

There is a lot more suggestive good language in this opinion,
but this shud suffice for now.





David

What a false defamation
u have hurled against me. Shame on u.
I am a Constitution lover.

I deemed Truman to have rendered aid & comfort
to the enemy by his removal of MacArthur.

That is good reason for removal.

My concern was not & is not limited to guns,
but also encompassed defense (from the commies), more broadly, including nukes.

I took the commies very seriously.

No, you most surely are not, David. You only "love" that which feeds your ego and fulfills your personal well being. And trying to twist these documents to fulfill those ends does not suggest love, it tells of greed.

Well, I LOVE GREED.
Let 's make no mistake about that; everyone shoud love greed.
That is natural; to do otherwise is perverted, politically correct, and twisted, in an evil way.

However, it is arrogant n presumptuous of u
to tell ME what I "only" love, as u put it; some nerve.

Do u claim to be a mind reader,
that u have better information qua MY emotions, than I do ??





David