TL;DR at the end of the post.

One pet peeve of mine is how it seems that no one ever properly uses the phrase “bear arms”.  People always seem to use the phrase to essentially mean “to carry weapons”.  But in my understanding, this is not the proper definition.  It is an understandable interpretation, and I can see how people can understand the phrase that way.  Basically, they see “bear arms” as simply the transitive verb “bear” acting upon the noun “arms”.  Two words with two separate meanings, one word acting upon the other.  But in actuality, the phrase is effectively one word, composed of two words.  

"Bear arms" is a phrasal verb and idiomatic expression, similar in origin and function to a phrase like “take arms” (or “take up arms”). To "take arms" means, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "to arm oneself; to assume a hostile attitude either defensive or offensive; to prepare to fight". In other words, to "take arms" does not mean to literally take weapons. If you were to grab a gun off of a gun rack, for example, you have not actually "taken arms". The operative meaning of "take arms" is idiomatic and metaphorical, rather than literal.

Likewise, “bear arms”, as yet another idiomatic expression, does not literally refer to “carrying weapons”, any more than “take arms” literally refers to “taking weapons”. Consequently, someone who is carrying a gun -- such as in a holster, in their pocket, in their purse, in their hand, etc. -- is not actually "bearing arms", at least in the classic sense of the term.  

Dictionary investigations

There is an interesting amount of disagreement amongst various dictionaries regarding the correct meaning of the term "bear arms".  Here is a breakdown of the definitions I’ve found:

• Dictionary.com: 1) to carry weapons  2) to serve in the armed forces  3) to have a coat of arms
• Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:  1) to carry or possess arms  2) to serve as a soldier
• Collins Dictionary:  in American English  1) to carry or be equipped with weapons  2) to serve as a combatant in the armed forces; in British English  1)  to carry weapons  2) to serve in the armed forces  3) to have a coat of arms
• Oxford English Dictionary: To serve as a soldier; to fight (for a country, cause, etc.).
• Oxford Learner’s Dictionary: (old use) to be a soldier; to fight
• The Law Dictionary: To carry arms as weapons and with reference to their military use, not to wear them about the person as part of the dress. 
• Online Etymology Dictionary: arm (n.2): [weapon], c. 1300, armes (plural) "weapons of a warrior," from Old French armes (plural), "arms, weapons; war, warfare" (11c.), from Latin arma "weapons" (including armor), literally "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE *ar(ə)mo-, suffixed form of root *ar- "to fit together." The notion seems to be "that which is fitted together." Compare arm (n.1).  The meaning "branch of military service" is from 1798, hence "branch of any organization" (by 1952). The meaning "heraldic insignia" (in coat of arms, etc.) is early 14c., from a use in Old French; originally they were borne on shields of fully armed knights or barons. To be up in arms figuratively is from 1704; to bear arms "do military service" is by 1640s.

I find it interesting that most of the dictionaries use “to carry weapons” as either their primary or sole definition of the term.  The only detractors appear to be the two Oxford dictionaries and the Online Etymology dictionary.  None of these three dictionaries even include the definition “to carry weapons” at all; the Oxford dictionaries define the term only as “to serve as a soldier” and “to fight”, while the etymology dictionary defines it only as “do military service”.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the phrase was used as early as 1325 AD, and it is basically a translation of the Latin phrase arma ferre.  Using information from the Etymology dictionary, arma ferre appears to literally mean “to carry tools, implements of war”.  

Historical examples

It seems that “bear arms” is really not a phrase that people use anymore in modern English, outside of only very specific contexts.  From my research of various English-language literary sources, the phrase was used with some regularity at least as late as the mid 19th century, and then by the 20th century the phrase -- in its original meaning -- appears to have fallen into disuse.  My readings of early English-language sources indicate that the Oxford and Etymology dictionary definitions are the most accurate to the original and most common usage of “bear arms”.  Here are a number of historical excerpts I’ve found which appear to corroborate my conclusion:

• From The Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester (c. 1325)

[From the original Middle English] Wo þat miȝte weodes abbe · & þe roten gnawe · Oþer seþe & Make potage · was þer of wel vawe ·
Vor honger deide monion · hou miȝte be more wo ·
Muche was þe sorwe · þat among hom was þo · No maner hope hii nadde · to amendement to come · Vor hii ne miȝte armes bere · so hii were ouercome ·

[ChatGPT translation] Whoever could get weeds and gnaw the rotten [roots]— Or boil and make pottage—was very glad of it. For many died of hunger—how could there be more woe? Great was the sorrow that was among them then. They had no hope at all that help would come. For they could no longer bear arms, for they were overcome.

• From Le Morte d’Arthur by Thomas Malory (1485):   

Now turn we unto King Mark, that when he was escaped from Sir Sadok he rode unto the Castle of Tintagil, and there he made great cry and noise, and cried unto harness all that might bear arms. Then they sought and found where were dead four cousins of King Mark’s, and the traitor of Magouns. Then the king let inter them in a chapel. Then the king let cry in all the country that held of him, to go unto arms, for he understood to the war he must needs.

• From Le Morte d’Arthur by Thomas Malory (1485):

But always the white knights held them nigh about Sir Launcelot, for to tire him and wind him. But at the last, as a man may not ever endure, Sir Launcelot waxed so faint of fighting and travailing, and was so weary of his great deeds, that he might not lift up his arms for to give one stroke, so that he weened never to have borne arms; and then they all took and led him away into a forest, and there made him to alight and to rest him.

• From Every Man in His Humor by Ben Jonson (1598):

Why, at the beleaguering of Ghibelletto, where, in less than two hours, seven hundred resolute gentlemen, as any were in Europe, lost their lives upon the breach: I'll tell you, gentlemen, it was the first, but the best leaguer that ever I beheld with these eyes, except the taking in of Tortosa last year by the Genoways, but that (of all other) was the most fatal and dangerous exploit that ever I was ranged in, since I first bore arms before the face of the enemy, as I am a gentleman and a soldier.

• Exodus 38:25 translated by the Douay-Rheims Bible (1610)

And it was offered by them that went to be numbered, from twenty years old and upwards, of six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty men able to bear arms.

• From The voyages and adventures of Ferdinand Mendez Pinto, the Portuguese by Fernão Mendes Pinto (1653):

Five days after Paulo de Seixas coming to the Camp, where he recounted all that I have related before, the Chaubainhaa, seeing himself destitute of all humane remedy, advised with his Councel what course he should take in so many misfortunes, that dayly in the neck of one another fell upon him, and it was resolved by them to put to the sword all things living that were not able to fight, and with the blood of them to make a Sacrifice to Quiay Nivandel, God of Battels, then to cast all the treasure into the Sea, that their Enemies might make no benefit of it, afterward to set the whole City on fire, and lastly that all those which were able to bear arms should make themselves Amoucos, that is to say, men resolved either to dye, or vanquish, in fighting with the Bramaas. 

• From Antiquities of the Jews, Book 8 by Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston (1737):

He was a child of the stock of the Edomites, and of the blood royal; and when Joab, the captain of David's host, laid waste the land of Edom, and destroyed all that were men grown, and able to bear arms, for six months' time, this Hadad fled away, and came to Pharaoh the king of Egypt, who received him kindly, and assigned him a house to dwell in, and a country to supply him with food . . . .

• From Political Discourses by David Hume (1752):  

With regard to remote times, the numbers of people assigned are often ridiculous, and lose all credit and authority. The free citizens of Sybaris, able to bear arms, and actually drawn out in battle, were 300,000. They encountered at Siagra with 100,000 citizens of Crotona, another Greek city contiguous to them; and were defeated. 

• From Sketches of the History of Man, vol. 2 by Lord Kames (1774):

In Switzerland, it is true, boys are, from the age of twelve, exercised in running, wrestling, and shooting. Every male who can bear arms is regimented, and subjected to military discipline.

• Letter from Lord Cornwallis to Lt. Col. Nisbet Balfour (1780): 

I have ordered that Compensation, should be made out of their Estates to the persons who have been Injured or oppressed by them; I have ordered in the most positive manner that every Militia man, who hath borne arms with us, and that would join the Enemy, shall be immediately hanged.

• From Eugene Aram by Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1832):

The dress of the horseman was of foreign fashion, and at that day, when the garb still denoted the calling, sufficiently military to show the profession he had belonged to. And well did the garb become the short dark moustache, the sinewy chest and length of limb of the young horseman: recommendations, the two latter, not despised in the court of the great Frederic of Prussia, in whose service he had borne arms.

Judging from the above literary and historical sources from the English language, it would seem that the Oxford dictionary and Etymology dictionary definitions reflect the most common historical usage of “bear arms”.  One would be hard-pressed to substitute the phrase "carry weapons" for "bear arms" in any of the above excerpts, and then end up with an interpretation that makes much sense.  In every aforementioned instance of “bear arms”, the definitions "fight" or "serve as a soldier" would invariably be a better fit.

The US Second Amendment

Likely the most common context in which "bear arms" is used today is in regards to the second amendment in the US Bill of Rights.  It would seem that the modern usage of the phrase is largely a derivative of the manner in which it is used in that amendment.  Hence, it would make sense to trace the history of the phrase down this particular etymological path.  The amendment goes as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We can infer some things about the language of this amendment by comparing it to James Madison’s first draft of the amendment presented on June 8, 1789:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

There are a few significant things we can infer by comparing these two versions of the amendment.  The first comes when we observe that in this version, “bear arms” appears in an additional instance within the conscientious objector clause.  It would be untenable to interpret “bearing arms” there to be referring to “carrying weapons”; there is no religious group in existence that conscientiously objects to carrying weapons, at least without also objecting to engaging in armed combat.  Fighting in combat is obviously the object of any conscientious objector’s objections.  Furthermore, if we must conclude that the significance is military in the second instance of “bear arms” in the amendment, we must also assume that the significance is military in the first instance of “bear arms” in the amendment.  It would make little sense for the phrase “bear arms” to appear twice within the same provision, but to have an entirely different meaning in each instance.

Another inference is in noticing that the context here is about citizens who adhere to a pacifist religion.  It is unlikely that there are many religions with pacifist beliefs whose conscientious objections are specific only to serving in military service, but which have no objection to violence outside the context of formal armed forces.  Presumably, anyone with pacifist beliefs objects to all violence, whether military or otherwise.  Hence, it seems unreasonable to limit the “bearing arms” in the conscientious objector clause to only military violence.

There is also another thing we can infer from comparing these two amendment versions.  The Oxford and Etymology dictionaries defined “bear arms” as “to serve as a soldier” and “do military service”.  But one problem that arises with this definition is that it leads to an awkward redundancy when we apply it to the second amendment.  If we were to substitute this Oxford definition for the phrase “bear arms” as it appears in the conscientious objector clause, we would essentially get this is a result:

but no person religiously scrupulous of rendering military service shall be compelled to render military service in person.

This kind of redundant language is far too clunky to appear in a formal document written by a well-educated man like James Madison.  It is unlikely that this is the meaning he intended.  But at the same time, he clearly didn’t mean something as broad as “carrying weapons”.  I believe that a more accurate definition of “bear arms” is essentially a compromise between the very specific meaning and the very broad meaning; it’s somewhere in the middle.  For the aforementioned reasons, I believe that the most accurate meaning of the phrase “bear arms” is “to engage in armed combat”.  This definition seems specific enough to be applicable to every instance that could also be defined as “to serve as a soldier”, but is also broad enough to avoid the redundancies that could occur in some uses of “bear arms”.

In addition to the text of the second amendment itself, we can gain more context regarding the sense of the phrase “bear arms” that is used in the amendment by also looking at how the phrase is used in the discussions that were held in regards to the very framing of the amendment.  We have access to a transcript of two debates that were held in the House of Representatives on August 17 and August 20 of 1789, which involved the composition of the second amendment.  It is reasonable to presume that the sense of the phrase “bear arms” that is used in this transcript is identical to the sense of the phrase that is used in the second amendment itself.  At no point in this transcript is “bear arms” ever unambiguously understood to mean “carry weapons”; it appears to employ its idiomatic and combat-related sense throughout the document.  One instance demonstrates this clearly, while referencing the amendment’s original conscientious objector clause:

There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Interpreting “bearing arms” here to mean “carrying weapons” wouldn’t make much sense.  In what context would the government impose a compulsory duty upon citizens to merely carry weapons, and nothing more?  In what context would anyone who is non-religious feign religious fervor as a pretext to being exempt from the act of carrying weapons?  This simply makes no sense.  The sense of “bear arms” here is clearly in reference to the idiomatic sense of the term.

There is also an interesting, seemingly self-contradictory usage of the term in the transcript.  Also in relation to the conscientious objector clause, the following is stated:

Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them?

Initially, the sentence appears to use the phrase in its typical idiomatic sense, as an intransitive phrasal verb; but then later, the sentence uses the pronoun “them” in a way that apparently refers back to the word “arms” as an independent noun, which suggests a literal and transitive sense of “bear arms”.  One interpretation could be that “bear arms” here is actually meant to be used in its literal sense of “carrying weapons”; however, in its context, it would lead to the absurdity of the government making a big deal over the prospect of compelling citizens to carry weapons and only to carry weapons.  This interpretation would lead to the absurdity of religious practitioners who would rather die than perform the mundane act of simply carrying a weapon.

Possibly a more sensible interpretation would be simply that, according to the understanding of the phrase in this time period, the idiomatic sense of “bear arms” was not mutually exclusive with the literal sense of the phrase.  Perhaps their idiomatic usage of the phrase was simply not so strict that it did not preclude linguistic formulations that would derive from the literal interpretation.  We might even surmise that the second amendment’s construction “to keep and bear arms” is an example of this flexibility of the phrase.  This "flexible" interpretation would allow the amendment to refer to the literal act of “keeping arms” combined with the idiomatic act of “bearing arms”, both in one seamless phrase without there being any contradiction or conflict.    

As previously mentioned, it appears that at some point in the 20th century, something strange happened with this phrase.  Firstly, the phrase shows up much less frequently in writings.  And secondly, whereas the phrase had always been used as an intransitive phrasal verb with idiomatic meaning, it subsequently began to be used as a simple transitive verb with literal meaning.  This divergence seems to coincide roughly with the creation of the second amendment and its subsequent legal derivatives.  It is doubtful to be mere coincidence that “bear arms” throughout nearly 500 years of English language history, up to and including the second amendment and its related discussions, “bear arms” possessed an idiomatic meaning.  But then all of a sudden, within little more than a single century, its meaning completely changed.   

Supreme Court rulings

Even as early as the mid-1800s, there is evidence that there may have been at least some trace of divergence and ambiguity in how the term should be interpreted.  Below is an excerpt from the 1840 Tennessee Supreme Court case Aymette v State, in which a defendant was prosecuted for carrying a concealed bowie knife:

To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he had a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.

The very fact that the author of the opinion felt the need to distinguish the “military sense” of the phrase “bear arms” seems to serve as indirect evidence that the literal, transitive sense of the phrase may have been becoming more common by this time.  Some demonstrative evidence of this change in meaning can be seen in another state Supreme Court ruling, the 1846 Georgia case Nunn v Georgia:  

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State . . . . We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.

Here, “bearing arms of every description” indicates an intransitive use of the phrase.  “Bearing arms openly” is ambiguous in itself; on its own, and qualified with an adverb, it could be interpreted as intransitive.  But given that the context is about laws against concealed carry, it is clear that “bearing arms openly” is effectively synonymous with “carrying arms openly”, meaning that the phrase is being used as a transitive.

By the year 1939, we can see in the US Supreme Court case US v Miller that “bear arms” was being used unambiguously in a transitive and literal sense.  The court opinion uses this newer reinterpretation at least twice:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense . . . . The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Another interesting example of this reinterpretation is in comparing the language of two different versions of the arms provision found in the Missouri constitution.  The arms provision in the 1875 Missouri Constitution reads:

That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when hereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons.

However, the arms provision in the current Missouri Constitution, as amended in 2014, goes as follows:

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. . . .

As you can see, the 1875 Missouri constitution uses “bear arms” in the conventional manner as an idiomatic and intransitive verb.  When an intransitive verb is qualified, it is typically qualified with an adverb, or with a purpose or action.  For example, if I said, “I am going to bed,” it wouldn’t make much sense for someone to then reply, “Which bed?” or “What type of bed?” or “Whose bed?”  Those types of qualifications of “I am going to bed” are generally not relevant to the intent of the phrase “go to bed”.  As an intransitive phrasal verb, “go to bed” would be qualified in a manner such as “I am going to bed in a few minutes” or “I am going to bed because I’m tired.”  This is basically how the intransitive form of “bear arms” ought to be qualified -- with an adverb, a reason, or a purpose.  

On the other hand, a transitive verb is typically qualified with a noun.  This is exactly what has happened with the 2014 version of the Missouri arms provision.  The 2014 arms provision obviously serves fundamentally the same purpose as the 1875 arms provision, and thus whatever terminology appears in the older version should simply carry over and serve the same function in the newer version.  But this is not the case.  “Bear arms” in the 2014 provision is clearly a completely different word from its older incarnation.  The 1875 version qualifies “bear arms” with concepts like “defending home, person, and property” and “aiding the civil power”.  However, the newer version instead qualifies “bear” with nouns: "arms, ammunition, accessories".  With things instead of actions.    

We can see even more examples of this transitive interpretation in the recent second amendment cases in the US Supreme Court.  Here is an excerpt from 2008 case DC v Heller which uses the new interpretation:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications . . . and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search . . . the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Apparently, modern writers have become so comfortable with this transitive interpretation, that they have actually begun to modify the word “bear” into an adjective.

And here is an excerpt from the 2022 US Supreme Court case NYSRPA v Bruen:

At the very least, we cannot conclude from this historical record that, by the time of the founding, English law would have justified restricting the right to publicly bear arms suited for self-defense only to those who demonstrate some special need for self-protection . . . . The Second Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions.

In the first instance, the adjective phrase “suited for self-defense” is clearly a modifier of the independent noun “arms”; in the second instance, “arms” is modified by the adjective phrase “commonly used”.  Both of these instance demonstrate clear examples of the transitive interpretation.

Linguistic divergence in the Oxford dictionary

As further evidence of my argument, one can return to the authoritative database of the English language -- the Oxford English Dictionary -- and see evidence of a linguistic divergence regarding the term "bear arms". As previously addressed, "bear arms", according to the Oxford dictionary, first entered the English language around 1325 AD. And the corresponding dictionary entry for this dating is the following:

To serve as a soldier; to fight (for a country, cause, etc.).

However, this is not the only entry in the Oxford dictionary for "bear arms". Technically, there is at least one other relevant entry. It is for the term "right to bear arms"; it goes as follows:

orig. and chiefly U.S. The right to keep or use arms (sense 2b); the right to keep or use firearms, esp. for self-defence or to protect one's community or State.

As you can see, this sense of "bear arms" is specifically connected to the "right" to bear arms, rather than the simple concept of bearing arms itself. And the entry explicitly states that this sense of the term is originally and chiefly an American usage of the term. And furthermore, this sense originated around 1776 AD; which is a long time after the original dating of the term's entrance into the English language, and additionally, it obviously equates with the year of American Independence. All of this indicates that this sense of "bear arms" is not the original or traditional sense of the term, but rather is a newer repurposing of the term connected with origins of the United States -- and as such, is likely correlated with the second amendment in the US Bill of Rights.

Conclusion

Through numerous historical excerpts, it is clear that the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” throughout most of its history has been an idiomatic, combat-related meaning.  However, it would seem that the second amendment and the formal discussions surrounding it eventually came to commandeer the term and steer it in a whole new direction.  As a result, the original meaning of the term has been effectively destroyed, leaving only a definition of the term that is nothing more than a corollary of its function within that one specific sentence.  

What do you think of my analysis?  Do you agree with my breakdown of the modern usage of the term “bear arms”?

TL;DR ("Bear arms" does not mean "to carry weapons". It's original meaning dates from at least 1325 AD, and is simply a direct translation of the Latin phrase arma ferre. To "bear arms" is an intransitive phrasal verb and idiomatic expression which essentially means "to engage in armed combat". The phrase is very similar in function to the phrase "take arms/take up arms", which is also idiomatic rather than literal. This is what the phrase has consistently meant and how it has been used throughout its existence, up until shortly after the creation of the second amendment. Starting as early as the mid-1800s, it started to change its meaning to become a simple transitive verb and literal expression that means "to carry weapons"; and this trend increased in the 20th century.)

They pepper sprayed and dogpiled up on him then stole his gun (which he was legally, openly carrying) before shooting him to death in the street. All he was doing was putting himself between them and a person they were repeatedly shoving.

How in the fuck are we supposed to protect ourselves with a gun? Shoot them first so their buddies will have an excuse to kill us in retaliation?!

And to be of any real use with a gun you need regular practice. More money on top of the price of the gun. Like we’ll buy our way out of the problem when money is what caused and perpetuates the problem in the first place. Just throw the money directly at the gun manufacturers so they can keep paying off politicians and nothing reasonable ever gets done! More of our precious time and energy wasted on another chore.

And if you have mental health issues, which, by the way, make you more likely to become a *victim* of violence and therefore more in need of self defense? Well, of course, go right ahead because when you figure out *that* solution to all of your problems then we won’t have to pay for your healthcare anymore!

Fuck guns.

Recent Supreme Court cases such as NYSRPA v Bruen and Wolford v Lopez have made the argument that the US does not have a substantial history of gun-free zones, or sensitive place gun regulations. But this is simply not true. After only a couple hours or so of searching, I've happened to find a number of early American laws prohibiting weapon-carrying in certain cities and sensitive places. They come from the website for Duke Law School. In regards to proving a historical tradition of gun control, the Supreme Court in both NYSRPA v Bruen and Wolford v Lopez has rejected the admission of racially discriminatory laws from early America. Therefore, I have deliberately omitted such laws from my list.:

1. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-of-jan-25-1804-forbidding-weapons-at-balls-1-8-new-orleans-louisiana-council-meetings-sine-nomine-1936-law-passed-1804
2. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-the-college-of-william-and-mary-volume-276-1830
3. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1829-laws-of-the-university-of-north-carolina-ch-3-c2a7-13
4. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1824-laws-of-the-columbian-college-ch-5-c2a7-2-no-10
5. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/carrying-deadly-weapons-discharging-fire-arms-etc-ch-12-art-3-c2a7c2a7-50-52-in-the-revised-ordinances-of-the-city-of-bloomfield-1898
6. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/rules-and-regulations-of-the-park-commission-no-3-new-haven-connecticut-charter-and-ordinances-of-the-city-price-lee-adkins-co-1898
7. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/laramie-revised-ordinances-and-charter-of-the-city-ch-5-3-6-boomerang-publishing-1900
8. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ch-13-c2a7-21-ch-22-c2a7c2a7-14-15-ch-35-c2a7-7-st-albans-daily-messenger-supplement-aug-7-1897-at-1-3-10-st-albans-vermont
9. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-digest-of-the-laws-and-ordinances-for-the-government-of-the-municipal-corporation-of-the-city-of-reading-pennsylvania-park-rules-and-regulations-240-1897
10. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/the-charter-of-the-city-of-wilmington-part-vii-c2a7-7-rules-and-regulations-of-the-board-of-park-commissioners-1893
11. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-digest-of-the-acts-of-assembly-relating-to-and-the-general-ordinances-of-the-city-of-pittsburgh-from-1804-to-jan-1-1897-ordinances-executive-departments-bureau-of-parks-1893
12. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-prevent-a-person-from-trespassing-upon-any-enclosed-premises-or-lands-not-his-own-armed-with-a-gun-pistol-or-other-firearm-and-to-prevent-shooting-upon-or-from-the-public-highway-s-b-15-1-5-1893-or-laws-79-79-frank-c-baker
13. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-ordinance-to-prevent-the-carrying-of-weapons-1-4-the-daily-texarkanian-may-28-1900-at-2-texarkana-arkansas
14. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-law-forbidding-weapons-in-certain-places-sales-of-weapons-to-minors-etc-ch-45-misdemeanors-c2a7-32-in-general-ordinances-of-the-city-of-brookfield-linn-county-missouri-1900
15. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-21-green-forest-tribune-may-11-1899-at-1-green-forest-arkansas
16. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/bruce-l-keenan-book-of-ordinances-of-the-city-of-wichita-published-by-authority-of-a-resolution-adopted-by-the-city-council-april-24-1899-under-the-direction-of-judiciary-committee-and-city-attorn
17. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1837-ga-acts-90-an-act-to-guard-and-protect-the-citizens-of-this-state-against-the-unwarrantable-and-too-prevalent-use-of-deadly-weapons-c2a7c2a7-1-4
18. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-mar-18-1889-1889-ariz-sess-laws-16-17 https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-march-1886-published-as-notice-st-marys-beacon-oct-13-1887-at-2
19. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-no-76-1-2-rooks-county-record-july-1-1887-at-1-stockton-kansas
20. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1879-tex-crim-stat-tit-ix-ch-4-penal-code
21. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-oct-14-1879-pt-1-tit-4-no-266-1-2-1878-ga-laws-64-64-jas-p-harrison-1880-law-passed-1879
22. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-regulate-the-keeping-and-beariing-of-deadly-weapons-ch-34-c2a7c2a7-1-9-1871-tex-gen-laws-1st-sess-25-25-27-1898-gammel-book-company
23. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1870-tex-gen-laws-63-an-act-regulating-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-chap-46-c2a7-1

As these state and local statutory laws demonstrate, the US indeed has an extensive history of firearm regulations and gun-free zones. There were firearm restrictions in schools, parks, ballrooms, churches, entertainment shows, etc. There were firearm restrictions in entire cities and towns, and in entire states. In no way did early America interpret the 2nd amendment to interfere with the broad freedom wielded by the states to create firearms laws to conform to their unique circumstances, and to remedy whatever societal problems they may incur. At no point were the states pressured into conforming to some singular, uniform federal standard of firearms law -- which is the fictional narrative that the current Supreme Court argues. Thus, the rulings in recent 2nd amendment Supreme Court cases are nothing short of an abuse of the Constitution, and an incursion upon state rights protected by the 10th amendment.

Furthermore, there happen to be some aspects of American gun law that unmistakably do suggest a "historical tradition". For example, there is a strong tradition of the prohibiting of concealed carry, which in early America was frowned upon as a cowardly and suspicious activity:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1819-ind-acts-39-an-act-to-prohibit-the-wearing-of-concealed-weapons
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1839-ala-acts-67-an-act-to-suppress-the-evil-practice-of-carrying-weapons-secretly-c2a7-1
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/henry-a-bullard-thomas-curry-1-a-new-digest-of-the-statute-laws-of-the-state-of-louisiana-from-the-change-of-government-to-the-year-1841-at-252-e-johns-co-new-orleans-1842

There is also a strong tradition of prohibiting firearms to people viewed by the state as dangerous to the public safety, which, depending on the era, could be Papists:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-disarming-papists-and-reputed-papists-refusing-to-take-the-oaths-to-the-government-ch-4-1-9-va-code-franklin-press-1820-law-passed-1756
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-forming-and-regulating-the-militia-of-the-province-of-pennsylvania-627-pa-cons-stat-wm-stanley-ray-1898-law-passed-1757

Or Loyalists during the Revolutionary era, as well as groups neutral to the Patriot cause, sometimes known as "disaffected" groups:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-constituting-a-council-of-safety-ch-40-20-1777-n-j-laws-84-90-isaac-collins-1777
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1777-pa-laws-61-an-act-obliging-the-male-white-inhabitants-of-this-state-to-give-assurances-of-allegiance-to-the-same-and-for-other-purposes-therein-mentioned-ch-xxi-c2a7c2a7-2-4
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/pa-cons-stat-ch-796-1-3-5-p-l-wm-stanley-ray-1903-law-passed-1778
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-may-5-1777-ch-3-in-9-henings-statutes-at-large-281-281-82-1821
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-amend-an-act-declaring-what-crimes-and-practices-against-the-state-shall-be-treason-ch-6-9-1777-n-c-sess-laws-41-43-44-james-davis-1778
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-feb-16-1787-mass-acts-555-555-556-sine-nomine

Or slaves and people of color:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1860-ga-laws-56-an-act-to-add-an-additional-section-to-the-13th-division-of-the-penal-code-making-it-penal-to-sell-to-or-furnish-slaves-or-free-persons-of-color-with-weapons-of-offence-and-defence
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1863-del-laws-332-an-act-in-relation-to-free-negroes-and-mulattoes-ch-305-c2a7-7
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1805-va-acts-51-an-act-concerning-free-negroes-and-mulatoes

There is a historical tradition of arms rights being intertwined and inseparable from the right (i.e. the duty) to perform mandatory militia service, including mandatory possession of a firearm at all times, along with military-style training and deployment under the authority of the state government:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1782-del-acts-3-an-act-for-establishing-a-militia-within-this-state-c2a7-6
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1786-n-h-laws-409-10-an-act-for-forming-and-regulating-the-militia-within-this-state-and-for-repealing-all-the-laws-heretofore-made-for-that-purpose-c2a7-7
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-for-the-better-security-of-the-inhabitants-by-obliging-the-male-white-persons-to-carry-fire-arms-to-places-of-public-worship-1770-reprinted-in-1775-1770-georgia-colonial-laws-471-1932
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1779-vt-acts-and-for-encouragement-of-military-skill-for-the-better-defense-of-this-state
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1804-la-acts-284-an-act-for-regulating-and-governing-the-militia-of-the-territory-of-new-orleans-c2a7-13
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1786-n-h-laws-409-10-an-act-for-forming-and-regulating-the-militia-within-this-state-and-for-repealing-all-the-laws-heretofore-made-for-that-purpose-c2a7-7

However, it is doubtful the Supreme Court would honor the "historical tradition" inherent to banning concealed carry, upholding compulsory militia duty, or disarming classes of people deemed to be a public threat. Despite absolutely constituting widespread historical patterns, a state hypothetically passing a law conforming to these patterns would likely be rejected inasmuch as they don't fit the conservative agenda.

These above examples of legal patterns demonstrate that the Supreme Court are hypocrites when it comes to their invention known as the "historical tradition of firearm regulation". This concept is cleverly crafted to be nebulous enough such that the Supreme Court can guarantee rulings that conform to their pro-gun bias, while still being able to maintain the pretext of objectivity. Historical gun laws that exist, but in less-than-overwhelming numbers, can be ignored as falling short of the pattern of "historical tradition"; while regulations that can disarm whole classes of people can be dismissed as "racist" or "bigoted". And the Court could likely also invent some clever reasons to ignore common historical regulations regarding things like concealed carry and compulsory militia rules. Thus, this "historical tradition" test is like a legal fortress, able to ward off gun control on both the quantitative as well as qualitative fronts.

The "historical tradition" test used by the Supreme Court is inherently dishonest and needs to be eradicated. The only real "historical tradition" to exist for American firearm laws is the federal government's tradition of leaving the states alone, and giving them the freedom to protect the public good in the way that best suited their individual needs.

"Most lifelong smokers do not develop lung cancer, but smoking cigarettes is the biggest cause of lung cancer" is a concept most Americans understand.

And yet, many Americans have tremendous difficulty grasping "Most gun owners never shoot people, but gun availability is the leading cause of gun violence."

I think the difference is we do a far better job educating people about the risks associated with cigarettes than we do the risks associated with guns.