We’ve found two interesting news items relating to federal court cases this morning, particularly regarding cases of not just keeping arms, but bearing them in public.

First, a pair of cases from Texas and Louisiana:

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide this month whether to hear two cases seeking clarification on what the Constitution’s framers intended in granting citizens the right to not only own but also “bear” arms.

In one case, rooted in Texas, the NRA is reportedly challenging a state law permitting minors to own guns, but stipulating all the same that they are, in fact, too young to apply for — and thus possess — the license necessary to carry them in public.

“The explicit guarantee of the right to ‘bear’ arms would mean nothing,” the NRA’s filing in the Texas matter reportedly argues, “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.”

In the other case, the NRA is reportedly challenging a decision rendered earlier by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans that upheld federal and state laws governing minors’ access to guns.

While the Supreme Court affirmed the right to “keep” a firearm six years ago, it has reportedly refused in the ensuing epoch to take up the question of what exactly it means to “bear” arms and where one can carry them.

A third possible “bearing” case comes to us from Ohio, where two of three judges in an Ohio Court of Appeals case have ruled that “bearing” extends to a person’s vehicle, and not just their homes as collectivists continue to argue (link goes to Volokh on the Washington Post; direct link to the court’s server seems to be overwhelmed).