The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

maestro pistolero · November 23, 2008, 05:32 PM

I read somewhere that the only part of a SCOTUS decision that carries the force of law is the holding itself. Is this true?
Because there was a whole lot more ground covered in Heller than whether or not one can have a gun in the house. For example from page 11 of Heller:

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to
the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.
The most prominent examples are those most relevant to
the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions
written in the 18th century or the first two decades
of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear
arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms
in defense of himself and the state.”8 It is clear from those
formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying
a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James
Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-
bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural
right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called
the law of “self preservation.”

I wonder how it is that the "bear" part of keep and bear gets so little credence. If it doesn't mean carry, then what does it mean? Again, if it isn't found in the holding itself, then what, if any weight will it carry in future cases?

November 23, 2008, 05:32 PM	#1
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	Heller, what counts as precedent? I read somewhere that the only part of a SCOTUS decision that carries the force of law is the holding itself. Is this true? Because there was a whole lot more ground covered in Heller than whether or not one can have a gun in the house. For example from page 11 of Heller: In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms- bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” I wonder how it is that the "bear" part of keep and bear gets so little credence. If it doesn't mean carry, then what does it mean? Again, if it isn't found in the holding itself, then what, if any weight will it carry in future cases?