from Brent Smith for World Net Daily:
Well, our vaunted United States Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case regarding the Second Amendment.
This is pretty uncommon, but it does happen – mostly because the Supremes over the years haven’t dared to actually do their jobs to the fullest, so their decisions seem to encompass a narrow scope and half-measures, never fully putting to bed that the Second Amendment clearly gives the right of an individual to “keep,” which means to own, and “bear,” which means to carry, arms on one’s person.
The Second Amendment makes no distinction between open and concealed carry, and thus any argument against either is moot. Nor does it make mention of licenses and/or permits, which is what this upcoming case is about, so these, too, are moot.
The case itself is a travesty of justice and should never have gotten to the high court.
The fact is that the Second Amendment, like all the first 10 amendments, is as permanent and binding as every article of the Constitution. And thanks to Article VI, Clause 2, these amendments, like the articles, are “the supreme Law of the Land. …”
What I’m saying is that if the courts actually did what they are charged to do, every challenge to the Second Amendment would be rejected, on its face, by every court in the land – period.
How am I so sure of this? Well, as I’ve said any number of times, I’m not a constitutional scholar or great jurist with an army of researchers, but I can read.
And as usual, the founders had plenty to say on the subject, affirming that the framers did intend the Second Amendment to encompass an individual’s right to carry guns for self-protection.
The first state Declaration of Rights to use the term “bear Arms” was that of Pennsylvania in 1776: “that the people have a right to bear Arms in defense of themselves and the state.” Pretty clear. No ambiguity there.
Noah Webster was certainly in a position to know what the Second Amendment phrase “bear Arms,” meant. A prominent Federalist, he wrote the first major pamphlet in support of the Constitution when it was proposed in 1787, in which he stated: “before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed. …” Again, pretty straightforward.