Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Constitutional Law Blogs -> Ninomania

Constitutional Law

: Ninomania

By David M. Wagner

From Heller:

In any event, the meaning of ?bear arms? that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby ?bear arms? connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving ?bear Arms? its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war?an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase ?keep and bear Arms? would be incoherent. The word ?Arms? would have two different meanings at once: ?weapons? (as the object of ?keep?) and (as the object of ?bear?) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying ?He filled and kicked the bucket? to mean ?He filled the bucket and died.? Grotesque.

I filled there ere I kicked thee, no way but this,
Kicking myself, to lie like Alger Hiss

Rip. Crumple. Toss.

Full post as published by Ninomania on June 29, 2008 (boomark / email).