Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Are non lethal devices covered by the Second Amendment?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by lanternlad1, Jun 28, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lanternlad1

    lanternlad1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    770
    Question:

    The Second Amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, no where does it say that these arms have to be lethal. Some states forbid the use of stun guns/tasers. My question is, wouldn't these be covered under the Second?
     
  2. rmodel65

    rmodel65 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    GA
    yes, but as of currently the 2nd amendment doesnt apply to the states except int he 9th federal district Cali, montana,Utah nevada etc

    alan gura the lawyer from DC v Heller has petetioned for cert for SOCTUS to hear the case
     
  3. lanternlad1

    lanternlad1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    770
    The seventh court of appeals said the Second isnt incorporated, but the ninth said it IS. Cert will be granted.
     
  4. rmodel65

    rmodel65 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    GA
    hopefully it will be decided that the 2nd is incorporated and nationwide reciprocity will be forced thru the 14th amendment
     
  5. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,703
    Location:
    Arlington, Republic of Texas
    Just to nit-pick, but the correct term is "less-than-lethal", as non-lethal implies that death by use is impossible. While deaths are rare with tasers, stun guns, and other such devices; they are possible.
     
  6. MDW GUNS

    MDW GUNS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Location:
    Maine USA
    Common sense would tell you that if deathly weapon are covered, that the non deathly would be too.
    But we are talking about liberals and politicians, so common sense is out!
     
  7. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,096
    The 2nd covers arms of the type used by soldiers of the time period as written by the founders. Whe armies were using muskets and cannon civilians could own muskets and some even had cannon.

    Trying to use that to justify non-lethal devices could backfire. Next the antis would be arguing that is the only arm you need, and that by only having those non lethal arms your right to arms still exists even with lethal means banned.

    There has been a federal law against switchblade knives for decades now. If those are arms why no challenge?, Keep in mind they were banned specificly because some people feared they were prefered arms of some gangs. So they were banned specificly as weapons, or "arms". That would be a place to start if you wanted to broaden the definition of arms.

    The 2nd protects "arms", or weapons. Not tools, weapons. So it must fundementaly be a weapon to be an arm. So it must be a weapon to be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
    They make comments about the definition when they say things like it is the right of all americans to have every "terrible implement of the soldier".
    By the founders definition non-lethal weapons would probably not be considered arms as the purpose of arms was as a lethal tool meant to be a check and balance against power.

    For example Tench Coxe put it this way:

    Essentialy the rulers may become corrupt and tyrannize, and the military forces which are sometimes required to exist (always exist today) cannot be trusted to never turn against the people or the Constitution, so the people must be capable of taking them on.
    So essentialy the very "right to keep and bear arms" was so the government could not impose martial law effectively.
    They thought in that context as a result of the Revolutionary War where English civilians organized and broke from the English government they felt were tyrants. They wanted to be sure the population had the future means to resist the government they were creating if it ever became necessary.


    In that light the definition of "Arm" would need to be a terrible implement of the soldier, capable of being used against a military force with some effectiveness to be covered by the Constitution.



    Non-lethal/less-lethal weapons would probably not qualify as "terrible implements of the soldier."
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2009
  8. Dave Markowitz

    Dave Markowitz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,993
    Location:
    Plymouth Meeting, PA
    Last Fall I asked Alan Gura if he thought the Second Amendment covered other arms, such as knives, given the reasoning in Heller. He said that he hadn't really thought about it, but saw no reason why it wouldn't.
     
  9. rmt22

    rmt22 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    56
    I don't think "other" weapons are going to be covered. They are not going to take a wide approach of the 2nd amendment IMO
     
  10. rmodel65

    rmodel65 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    GA
    the NY case is over Nun Chucks the 2nd applies to anything you could use for a weapon imho, ie: hammer, an axe etc
     
  11. KBT1911

    KBT1911 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    166
    Location:
    Texas
    All it says is "Arms". I assumed it meant any type of weapon that could be carried by a citizen body capable of forming a militia. I may be wrong, but didn't Ben Franklin push for bows over muskets for use by the Continental Army because of faster reloading time? IMO that should cover knives, guns, swords, flails, bows/crossbows and anything else short of artillery. Then again, the militia could use a few cannon.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page