Does 2nd Amendment Apply to EVERY Weapon?

[bushmaster1313]

Question #1 Does the 2nd Amendment apply to EVERY weapon.

Question #2 If it does not, where does it draw the line?

The answer to Question #1 is easy. Of course it does not protect every weapon. If it did, there would be no restriction on your next door neighbor mixing or storing weapons of mass destruction in his garage.

Therefore, the real question is: "What limits can be placed on weapons without infringing the right to keep and bear arms?"

IMHO I think that explosive devices can be prohibited.

Short barreled shotguns could be prohibited so long as long barreled shotguns were legal.

Concealed carry could be prohibited as long as open carry was allowed.

The hardest question is whether full auto could be prohibited. I would say yes. A person does not need a full auto gun in order to keep and bear arms.

 

[dirt_j00]

:banghead:

A person does not need a full auto gun in order to keep and bear arms.

Substitute "semi auto" for "full auto", and this could be a Brady statement.

 

[General Geoff]

Question #1 Does the 2nd Amendment apply to EVERY weapon.

Answer: Yes, it should. All the way up to weapons of mass destruction. Nukes and chemical/biological weapons are a self-limiting market, and a wealthy, motivated individual has nothing really stopping him from obtaining such things already. As such, indeed they should be protected under the second amendment.

Tyranny is defined by that which is legal for the government, but illegal for the citizenry.

 

[bushmaster1313]

I appreciate the arguments that it should include machine guns and even grenades.

I would drop back to the preamble of the 2nd Amendment and say that it protects the right of individuals to be "well armed".

An M1 certainly makes a soldier "well armed". This is true even if giving him or her grenades and select fire makes them better armed.

 

[dirt_j00]

Wouldn't a "well-regulated militia" find select-fire weapons useful for the "security of a free State"?

 

[2ndAmFan]

IMHO I think that explosive devices can be prohibited.

Short barreled shotguns could be prohibited so long as long barreled shotguns were legal.

Concealed carry could be prohibited as long as open carry was allowed.

The hardest question is whether full auto could be prohibited. I would say yes. A person does not need a full auto gun in order to keep and bear arms.


Boy, this will start a good argument or get locked...both?

I don't agree with the OP on those. RKBA means RKBA. I'm not sure I want to get into the WMD aspect of it. As many idiots as there are running around out there I don't know if making it easier for them to obtain that kind of stuff would be a good thing.

 

[wishin]

I believe the question of bombs and missiles as "arms" has long been resolved. Not Second Amendment. That makes sense to me. To take the position that we can possess these things makes us all seem like a bunch of dumba$$ redneck fanatics.

As far as all other firearms go, the problem, and reasonable argument, is that the moment anti-gun people see a weakness or chasm in the RKBA movement through an admission that certain barrel lengths, mag capacities, automatic fire, etc., are OK, it's the green light to keep chipping away. There's already a history of just that happening, so therefore, we need to keep insisting that they're wrong in their limitations.

 

[MisterMike]

Obviously there's a limit . . . as is the case with all Constitutional guarantees. To suggest that there isn't is absolutely ludicrous.

As to where you draw the line, I ain't that smart. However, I'm pretty sure that the line should fall south of nukes, chemical weapons, and daisy cutters.

 

[General Geoff]

Obviously there's a limit . . . as is the case with all Constitutional guarantees. To suggest that there isn't is absolutely ludicrous.

Rights are not limited arbitrarily. The freedom of speech and religion are not restricted; only the infringement on the rights of others. Yelling "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater IS protected free speech. If, however, there isn't actually a fire, then the person who yelled it is indeed liable for the chaos that ensues, and the theater's lost revenue.

Simply owning a daisy cutter isn't hurting anyone, thus it should absolutely be legal.

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

The point to the second amendment as far as I am concerned recognizes that we all have a responsibility to protect ourselves from being tyrannized. Its only possible to truly control someone if they are not able to fight back. If for instance a foreign army or our own government tried to round up any particular segment of the population for forced relocation, with the likely end result to the people being imprisonment, forced labor,or death, those who were armed with modern small arms would not be able to be rounded up so long as they fought back. You can't use a tank, a fighter jet, or an aircraft carrier to round people up and force them out of their homes, you need foot soldiers.

What this means is that while it would certainly benefit an emergency militia to have access to anti vehicle weaponry, it is not vital. A population armed with modern small arms would be able to effectively resist occupation and control, so long as the people were determined and united.

Ideally, civilians should be able to possess arms comparable to what a modern individual soldier would have available, including automatic rifles/machine guns.

 

[MisterMike]

The freedom of speech and religion are not restricted; only the infringement on the rights of others. Yelling "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater IS protected free speech. If, however, there isn't actually a fire, then the person who yelled it is indeed liable for the chaos that ensues, and the theater's lost revenue.

Geoff, I think your analysis is incorrect. There are a number of examples in U.S. jurisprudence that indicate that, for instance, that certain types of speech are restricted; those restrictions do not necessarily involve infringement of others' rights, but are generally predicated on the concept of protecting an articulable public interest. Likewise, there are proscriptions against certain religious practices that do not impinge on others rights--for instance, the use of controlled substances in religious ceremonies.

I'd be interested in hearing your basis for your argument--are there historical documents or other sources you can point to in support of the notion that the Constitutionally-recognized right should be absolute?

 

[UpTheIrons]

The statement was made on another thread yesterday (which I cannot find at this moment) that until after the NFA passed in 1934, the majority of the country saw no problem with "Average Joe" owning a full auto weapon.

Only after they were demonized did the tide begin to change. Nowadays, you'd be hard pressed to find a large group of people (outside of a gun board - and certainly NOT in an NRA meeting) who would say that full-auto weapons shouldn't be regulated. They are in common use in the military, so why shouldn't we have access to them? High tax fees and exhorbitant prices ARE NOT access to this type of firearm.

So, where do you draw the line? Somewhere around "common use". Full-auto is fine, SBS and SBR should be fine, too. Soldiers use them everyday.

The "big boys" toys like missiles, bombs, and whatnot are disqualified because they are not an 'individual' weapon.

I don't know if I answered your questions yet - I'm still thinkin' this through.

 

[General Geoff]

Geoff, I think your analysis is incorrect. There are a number of examples in U.S. jurisprudence that indicate that, for instance, that certain types of speech are restricted; those restrictions do not necessarily involve infringement of others' rights, but are generally predicated on the concept of protecting an articulable public interest. Likewise, there are proscriptions against certain religious practices that do not impinge on others rights--for instance, the use of controlled substances in religious ceremonies.

I'd be interested in hearing your basis for your argument--are there historical documents or other sources you can point to in support of the notion that the Constitutionally-recognized right should be absolute?

First thing's first. What should be and what is, are two different things. I am describing things as they logically should be. A right can't be limited, by its own definition. If it is, it ceases to be a right. The religious ceremonies with controlled substances thing, well, the (federal) government has no legitimate power to control said substances. Wickard v. Filburn basically took a torch to the Constitution and everything it stands for.

 

[MisterMike]

First thing's first. What should be and what is, are two different things. I am describing things as they logically should be. A right can't be limited, by its own definition. If it is, it ceases to be a right. The religious ceremonies with controlled substances thing, well, the (federal) government has no legitimate power to control said substances. Wickard v. Filburn basically took a torch to the Constitution and everything it stands for.

Okay, I understand your distinction. However, I still don't understand the logic behind your argument that, as I understand it, there is an individual right to own any weapon of any sort. I don't think you're likely to convince me, but I'd like to understand the basis of this argument. I've heard this proclamation from time to time, but I've never understood the history or reasoning behind this claim.

 

[shockwave]

"right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

What would the framers have meant by "bear arms"? Based on the various writings like the Federalist papers, we can see that they wanted citizens to be armed to the extent that, in the event of tyrannical government, they would be sufficiently armed to resist. And given the state of weaponry during the late 1700s, they were talking about muskets. But not cannon. That is, the people were to be armed to the extent that they could not be readily subdued by a foreign or domestic army.

Organized as a militia, citizens with small arms are able to hold off an army, as Muqtar al-Sadr's militia, the "Mahdi Army" demonstrated. They could be beaten, sure, with air power or heavy weapons, but at a very high cost.

This would imply that the framers would allow firearms up to those commonly carried by general troops, so for us, they'd probably allow up to M-16s, but it is not necessary for each independent citizen to have enough firepower to hold off an army to still be in accord with the 2nd A.

 

[AirForceShooter]

Here are the words that make you shiver
"subject to reasonable restriction"

Those words are going to become the full employmnet act for 2A attorneys

AFS

 

[wishin]

Any time the word "reasonable" shows up you can expect 10 lawyers to have 11 opinions on what it means.

 

[General Geoff]

Okay, I understand your distinction. However, I still don't understand the logic behind your argument that, as I understand it, there is an individual right to own any weapon of any sort. I don't think you're likely to convince me, but I'd like to understand the basis of this argument. I've heard this proclamation from time to time, but I've never understood the history or reasoning behind this claim.

See my first reply:

Tyranny is defined by that which is legal for the government, but illegal for the citizenry.

Furthermore, the legal definition of "Arms" from Bouvier's 1856:

ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 a; Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h. t.

I would say that a right to keep and bear arms, does not arbitrarily stop at hand-held weapons, and does indeed extend to crew-served weapons.

 

[Boats]

"A Letter of Marque and Reprisal" would be a pretty impotent power granted to Congress in the constitution were there no one out there with capacity to be granted one.

Wealthy folks and ship owners used to have artillery and naval guns that could rival anything a nation could muster, in quality if not quantity.

I think prohibitive possession laws are insane and not grounded in the constitution. Time, place and manner restrictions for use? That's a whole other topic where the general exercise of the state's police powers do not rise to meaningful infringement save for the carry prohibitions of defensive small arms.

For instance, my regime would permit the ownership of a nuke sub and ICBM's if you could swing it financially. However, you'd have a responsibility with your right to properly maintain that equipment to the same standards as the Navy employs.

Same thing for hand grenades. Buy one if you want. However, you'd have to have a place to safely store it, and if you want to practice with one, you couldn't just go willy nilly in the national forest. You'd have to use it a a formal range for practice and not allowed to carry general area effect weapons without a formal militia call-up.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

I'm pretty sure anything man portable falls under the 2A.

Crew served stuff would fall under all the 3 different types of militia as outlined in the Constitution.

 

[General Geoff]

However, you'd have a responsibility with your right to properly maintain that equipment to the same standards as the Navy employs.

There is no such thing as a right without responsibility.

This simply cannot be overemphasized. An adult is held accountable for his own actions. With all rights come responsibilities, it is a burden which accompanies maturity.

 

[Carl]

I always thought the 2nd Amendment pertained to the right to carry small arms only, not things of a magnitude like tanks and bombs.

 

[StarDust1]

Question #1 Does the 2nd Amendment apply to EVERY weapon.

Question #2 If it does not, where does it draw the line?

The answer to Question #1 is easy. Of course it does not protect every weapon. If it did, there would be no restriction on your next door neighbor mixing or storing weapons of mass destruction in his garage.

Therefore, the real question is: "What limits can be placed on weapons without infringing the right to keep and bear arms?"

IMHO I think that explosive devices can be prohibited.

Short barreled shotguns could be prohibited so long as long barreled shotguns were legal.

Concealed carry could be prohibited as long as open carry was allowed.

The hardest question is whether full auto could be prohibited. I would say yes. A person does not need a full auto gun in order to keep and bear arms.

All federal gun control laws & measures largely exist in direct violation to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, it becomes more murky as we delve into the issues of states rights, but not overly so!
That said, don't go testing the resolve of the usurpers to defrock your RKBA, and every other right you happen to think you're entitled to....Thats because you really have no rights that they can't, or won't strip you of if they so desire, which makes it debatable as to whether we really enjoy civil rights, as opposed to civil privileges....My two cents? We essentially have no rights, and deep down, we all know this to be true....

 

[StarDust1]

:banghead:



Substitute "semi auto" for "full auto", and this could be a Brady statement.

Salute...

 

[KBintheSLC]

Does 2nd Amendment Apply to EVERY Weapon?
Question #1 Does the 2nd Amendment apply to EVERY weapon.

Question #2 If it does not, where does it draw the line?

The answer to Question #1 is easy. Of course it does not protect every weapon. If it did, there would be no restriction on your next door neighbor mixing or storing weapons of mass destruction in his garage.

Therefore, the real question is: "What limits can be placed on weapons without infringing the right to keep and bear arms?"

IMHO I think that explosive devices can be prohibited.

Short barreled shotguns could be prohibited so long as long barreled shotguns were legal.

Concealed carry could be prohibited as long as open carry was allowed.

The hardest question is whether full auto could be prohibited. I would say yes. A person does not need a full auto gun in order to keep and bear arms.

Holy crap!


...