A report by the Wall Street Journal quoted the Constitution Daily's Lyle Denniston, who wrote that the US Supreme Court will be forced to define the meaning of the right to bear arms for self defense as it is expecting to hear two guns right vases. WSJ said that the two cases will show how the Supreme Court will exercise its legal prowess on defining a controversial law after several high-profile cases involving the deaths of minors have sparked national attention for lawmakers to go over the inadequate legislation.
Denniston added, The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to "keep" a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home. But it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home. If there is a separate right to "bear" a gun (and the Court, in fact, did say in 2008 that the two rights were separate), it has not said what that means."
The National Rifle Association, for one, believes that the issue on clarifying the difference between having the right to keep a gun and bearing a gun was ripe for a high court review, WSJ said. In one of their petitions to the high court, lawyers for the gun association wrote, "The explicit guarantee of the right to ‘bear' arms would mean nothing if it did not protect the right to ‘bear' arms outside of the home, where the Amendment already guarantees that they may be ‘kept.' The most fundamental canons of construction forbid any interpretation that would discard this language as meaningless surplus."
The newspaper also stated that the justices are expected to have a discussion over the guns cases next week and will reveal whether a legislation review will be granted.
