|
First, my hat's off to Retired15T for his service to our country and his overcoming the effects of the injury he sustained. Godspeed to you in your further recovery!
Getting back to the original question, I would surmise that to "bear" arms is to actually use them (what good would it do to be able to "keep" arms if you couldn't also use them?). I don't think it equates to carrying, but a law that unduly burdened one's ability to carry could in certain cases have the effect of infringing the right to "bear" arms and thus be unconstitutional.
IMHO the SCOTUS cases (McDonald, Heller) will not have much if any effect on carry laws, which will continue to be the province of state legislatures to do as they see fit.
DD
|