The right to bear ARMS?

Forums: Arms, Amendment, Second
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The second amendment has been a topic of discussion for a long time, I get that. I'm sure that, in that time, people have discussed the specific meaning of the word ARMS. Everybody seemingly just talks about firearms when discussing this amendment, and it usually involves the NRA these days.

But when I look up a definition of ARMS on Merriam-Webster, I get the definition: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm.

That seems to imply a whole lot more than just firearm: that's a broad category, since a LOT of things can be used for offence or defense.

For example:
Swords
Cannons
Poison (think darts or knives)
Grenades
Mortars
Nerve gas
Napalm

Since most debates regarding laws against guns seem to come down to the second amendment and the defense that making laws prohibiting guns is against the civil rights of Americans, how about the weapons listed above? Shouldn't they be free to be 'beared' given the nature of the second amendment?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 697 • Replies: 16

No top replies

The courts allow restrictions to be placed on a right IF the restrictions can be justified with a good reason and do not impede the function of the right.

Restrictions on some of those weapons can be justified with a good reason and do not impede people's ability to defend themselves.

1 Reply

@najmelliw,

'RIGHTS' = "WHAT OTHERS ALLOW THEIR PROPERTY".
Just because 'someone' decided to limit your existence doesn't mean you are obligued to give a Gerbil about their gratuitous offering/s.

'WRONGS' = Whole other story.

Self-generated forcefields are what's needed - Then 'guns' become redundant.

0 Replies

@najmelliw,

BUT I WANT A TSAR BOMBA!

1 Reply

Tsar Bomba could have been double the power if they had gone the whole way and used a fissionable casing, but that would have been a bit scary even for Khrushchev and his cronies. The delivery aircraft could not have escaped in time. As it was, it broke windows 560 miles away.

0 Replies

@najmelliw,

The right to keep and bear arms is contingent upon the stated need for a well-regulated militia. The question of what constitues a well-regulated militia can be referred back to Article One, Section Eight of the constitution, one of the paragraphs of which reads, in its entirety: [Congress shall have the power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

In Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supremes held that: state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. Although the gun loonies claim otherwise, this had never been overturned nor amended--so only the states have the right to form such military bodies, within the restrictions of the various militia acts which have been passed by Congress.

In The United States v. Miller (1939), the Supremes upheld the 1934 National Firearms Act. This was on several bases, including the taxation powers of the Congress, as well as the regulation of interstate commerce. However, referring to the well-regulated militia, the majority opinion wrote: 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.

So whatever the gun loonies may say, individuals do not determine what weapons they may possess, Congress does. The Militia Act of 1903 recognized the organized militia--what became known as the National Guard--and the unorganized militia, which is everybody else. Congress can determine that private individuals may not possess nerve gas, hand grenades, machine guns and tactical nukes. Therefore, in answer to your question--no, that laundry list of instruments of mayhem cannot be considered within the right to keep and bear arms, and the dictionary be damned.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms is contingent upon the stated need for a well-regulated militia.

That is incorrect. There is a history of case law establishing a personal right to have guns for self defense extending long before the US even existed as an independent country.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

BUT I WANT A TSAR BOMBA!

Why? It was big, bloated, inelegant, and unusable.

0 Replies

In the United States, and as established by the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is contingent upon the existence of a well-regulated militia. The Court's only decision expressing a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense was in Heller v. the District of Columbia which specifically recognized the right of the Federal government and the several states to regulate firearms. The decision in Heller is the first and only decision which makes such a distinction, and effectively only applies to the District of Columbia. The Militia Act of 1903 defined those who are not members of what is now called the National Guard as being the unorganized militia. Said unorganized militia is still subject to regulation by the Congress and the several states.

Topics like this always reek of old bullsh*t when the gun lovers show up.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

In the United States, and as established by the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is contingent upon the existence of a well-regulated militia.

Wrong. In the United States, people have the right to have guns for personal self defense irrespective of the militia.

Setanta wrote:

The decision in Heller is the first and only decision which makes such a distinction, and effectively only applies to the District of Columbia.

The Heller ruling applies to the entire federal government.

And the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the right and applies it to all state and local governments.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

In the United States, and as established by the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is contingent upon the existence of a well-regulated militia. T

You keep repeating this same line of bullshit. Do you believe that if repeated enough that will make it true?

Heller separated the right to keep and bear arms from having anything to do with militia membership. Rightly so too.

Quote:

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

It DOES NOT only apply to D.C. The only bullshit here comes from people that do not believe in the freedoms that Americans are afforded in the US Constitution.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Thanks for the clarification Set. However, it does seem from the documentation of the court case Heller vs. District of Columbia that the Supreme Court judge made the claim that the second amendment is not just limited to militia, but includes all individual citizens as well, with some restrictions in place. However, given that distinction, are the two cases you mentioned (Presser v. Illinois and The United States v. Miller), that seem to be aimed at militia exclusively, no longer valid?

And is the definition of the word 'arms' for the individual citizens, specifically the ones not tied to any type of militia, then not still open for discussion?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

The courts allow restrictions to be placed on a right IF the restrictions can be justified with a good reason and do not impede the function of the right.

Restrictions on some of those weapons can be justified with a good reason and do not impede people's ability to defend themselves.

That seems like filling up the creek after the calf has drowned (a dutch expression). Basically, if 'arms' of some kind weren't restricted, and a citizen would use them for 'self defense', would the court then in reaction to that specific instance restrict access to that specific type of weapon?

Also, are such restrictions made on a state level, or in federal court? If so, someone could use poison in Kentucky, and once it was outlawed there, for instance take it to Kansas and do something similar?