Individual right to bear arms.

[apython]

I hope this hasn't been discussed but I didn't see anything about so I figured I'd bring it up. The Supreme court has decided that the second amendment refers to an individuals right to keep and bear arms. I know the case only refers to keeping a handgun in the home, but doesn't this also mean that we have an individual right to carry a firearm as well. I always understood bearing arms to mean carrying a gun. So wouldn't this make it unconstitutional to deny some who is not prohibited from owning a firearm the right to carry it for self defense (or any legitimate purpose)? I know that this case did not specifically deal with this issue but it seems logical to me. Shouldn't NJ residents have equal protection of the right to bear arms.

[XD40coyote]

I am sure lawsuits will be filed in the states that "just don't get it". Could be years of litigations and lots of $$$$$, and maybe these states will relent and loosen up and join the other 80% of the USA.

I sure hope MD can get its butt whipped into being constitutional.

[pex]

Scalia said in his search for the historical meaning of bear that carry was exactly part of the meaning.

The question before SCOTUS was not to carry arms, but to keep them in the home. Although we had to find that to get where they did, I think the scope is 'technically limited' buy the questions put before the court.

Other challenges will need to be brought before courts, if not THE court, to resolve the other issues.

[Philadelphia]

Scalia and the majority did hint how they would likely decide the issue of carry.

They said concealed carry is not a right. They said restricting carry in "sensitive" places such as schools and gov't buildings would be OK. Where that leads is a right to open carry except in certain "sensitive" places.

They could have simply said there is a right to carry in the home and left it at that. They went beyond just saying that which leads me to believe the Court is primed to rule on the issue of carry.