The right to keep arms, but not to bear arms?

[OakRidgeStars]

Head, meet duct tape.

---

Oops: Obama judicial appointee says we have right to keep arms, but not to bear them

From The Daily Caller
By AWR Hawkins, Ph.D

When Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), spoke at CPAC on February 10th, he predicted that if Barack Obama wins a second term it will usher in an all-out attack on the Second Amendment. In so many words, he said the same people who brought us Fast and Furious, “a criminal enterprise” for which there has yet to be prosecutions, will use four more years to gut constitutional protections on the right to keep and bear arms. And anyone who wonders what this assault on the Second Amendment might look like need look no further than Illinois, where a judge that President Obama appointed has just ruled that we have the right to keep arms, but not to bear them.

That’s not a typo. Rather, it’s an unbelievable decision recently delivered by U.S. Judge Sue Myerscough, in a challenge which the Second Amendment Foundation filed against Illinois’s ongoing prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in that state. Said Myerscough, in rendering her decision: “[Although the] plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public … [the] Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.”

This is troubling for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Myerscough has completely disregarded the fact that our natural, God-given rights are not subject to court approval for viability. Rather, our Founding Fathers used the Bill of Rights to build a hedge of protection around those rights with which we were endowed by our Creator. And one of those rights was the right to self-defense, and therefore the right not only to keep but also to bear the arms necessary to defend ourselves. On this point, the language of the Second Amendment couldn’t be clearer: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Italics mine)

Moreover, in 2010, after the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against Chicago’s handgun ban in McDonald v. Chicago — a case which grew out of Chicago citizen Otis McDonald’s desire to be able to defend his life and property — the court ruled against the handgun ban, citing the fact that “self-defense is a basic right.” The court also pointed out that “self defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” (Italics in original)

Read more here: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/13/oops- ... bear-them/

[gunderwood]

Perhaps Obama's appointee is confused?

[OakRidgeStars]

Maybe...

[OleMan]

[quote="gunderwood"]Perhaps Obama's appointee is confused?

That's funny!

Or - perhaps the witch cannot, or refuses to, read the controlling document (or reads but lack comprehension):

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html

Maybe she learned in her extensive education that the sole meaning of "bear" is a big hairy creature that what eat peoples for a snack.

Oleman

[OleMan]

Maybe...

[gunderwood]

Maybe...

Next someone will be taking about giving those bears nukes or something...

[MNMGoneShooting]

I wonder if *SHE* pays for any tickets produced in her name?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/13/pe ... latestnews

[Kreutz]

[VBshooter]

There are far too many of these legislate from the bench types in the Judicial system... And more and more it's showing that they are not restricted to any one part of the country ,,,,It's a trend that needs to be stopped and we have a shot at starting in November by getting "Junior" out of the White House

[zerodown1]

Its not surprising that a liberal boot licken judicial appointee from Illinoisizeckastan would take that posistion. How do you think he got the appointment.

[FiremanBob]

We all knew that the bear arms issue would end up in the SCOTUS. This is a step in that direction.

I'd feel better if the next one or two justices were Romney appointees when it reaches the top.