TexasCHLforum.com

Didn't Heller specifically say that 2A encompasses the right to carry handgun for defense purposes?

jecsd1 wrote:Didn't Heller specifically say that 2A encompasses the right to carry handgun for defense purposes?

The way the supreme court works is that they ensure that their rulings have a minimal impact outside of the issue brought before them. In Heller the issue before the court was the right to keep arms, not to bear arms. With that in mind the court ruled that the right to keep arms is protected while hinting at how they would rule on a case regarding the right to bear arms. I keep hearing and seeing people talk/write/post about an Incorporated right to bear arms, but I have yet to see one of these people actually carry a gun in the manner they say is legal without any legal authority other than their logic regarding Heller and McDonald.

I really want constitutional carry, open or concealed without a need for a license as long as you are legally qualified to possess the gun, but I will take what we can get. At this point, parking lot protection from being fired and campus carry mean more to me as they will give me more opportunities to protect myself than open carry would. My $0.02 worth.

G.A. Heath wrote:

jecsd1 wrote:Didn't Heller specifically say that 2A encompasses the right to carry handgun for defense purposes?

The way the supreme court works is that they ensure that their rulings have a minimal impact outside of the issue brought before them. In Heller the issue before the court was the right to keep arms, not to bear arms. With that in mind the court ruled that the right to keep arms is protected while hinting at how they would rule on a case regarding the right to bear arms. I keep hearing and seeing people talk/write/post about an Incorporated right to bear arms, but I have yet to see one of these people actually carry a gun in the manner they say is legal without any legal authority other than their logic regarding Heller and McDonald.

Actually the way the Supreme Court "works" is that under its constituted power to hear cases arising under the U.S. Constitution, a by-product called constitutional case law, or jurisprudence is formed. The Court "incorporated" the ENTIRE Second Amendment in deciding the McDonald case- not just the KEEP ARMS part. The decision is one thing, The holdings are quite another. The "logic" asserted that the Court somehow or other managed to bisect the 2A into two halves with one half held to be incorporated to the states, and one half held in reserve from application to the states until some future case is heard ignores the core holdings in both Heller, and McDonald.

The legal authority I possess to carry my gun is not "my logic", but AN ACTUAL LAW known as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that the Court held does in fact apply against the states -including Texas - under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.