Maryland stands athwart gun rights, yelling stop

Maryland’s highest court has ruled that the Second Amendment gives no right to carry weapons outside the home. I don’t see how this can stand. Heller said explicitly that the right to “bear arms” means right to carry arms on one’s person:

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry. . . When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.”

To suggest that that right is somehow limited to the home (where it would be no different than the right to keep arms) doesn’t seem tenable to me.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: