Does the 2A protect the right to own ammunition?

[BSA1]

A comment on another thread got me to thinking. Does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to own ammunition?

When the Bill of Rights was adopted ammunition was easily made. Flints, ingredients for blackpowder and lead were all available from Mother Nature. Bullet molds, screens for BP and cloth for patches were about the only man made materials required. Regulation of ammunition components would well been impossible in that era. Our forefathers could not have imaged the advances ammo would make.

Today regulations on bullets are common,,,steel shot only for waterfowl, no lead bullets on shooting ranges, hollow point bans.

While I am sure there have been lawsuits challenging government regulations such as steel shot for sporting use/hunting this is not the same as the right to own ammunition. Are there any legal concepts or cases that have directly addressed the right to own and possess ammunition?

 

[SleazyRider]

I've always considered the term "arms" an inclusive one, pertaining to long guns, pistols, shotguns, ammunition, et cetera. But of course, unlike the courts, I interpret things literally.

 

[Hacker15E]

I think it is pretty obvious that ammunition is part and parcel with the term "arms".

Heller said,

"We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

That seems pretty clear that ammunition, being required for firearms to be used "for the core lawful purpose of self defense", is just as protected as the firearm.

 

[kwguy]

Ammunition is a part of 'arms'.

Our founders were pretty smart. They could easily have imagined weapons that were more advanced than what they had then. That's like saying we can't imagine advanced space travel, just because we can't do it yet.

Google Lewis and Clarks' Girandoni rifle. That thing was around when the 2nd amendment was drafted. It could fire 20 rounds in 30 seconds. Another arms maker wanted to sell a form of 'machine gun' to congress in the form of an automatically firing repeating musket, but it was too expensive for our new Congress to afford.

The 2A was never equipment based, it was always a concept. Just like the 1st amendment. Otherwise we'd still be using printing presses only.

 

[BSA1]

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century, at a time when there were no police or forces of law enforcement, about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject to their suitability and allowance by law.

“The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

Edward Christian's edition of Blackstone's Commentaries that appeared in 1790s described the rights of Englishmen (which every American colonist had been promised) in these terms 'everyone is at liberty to keep or carry a gun, if he does not use it for the [unlawful] destruction of game.'

In Heller the court wrote "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

While no mention of ammunition common law suggests that ammunition is a part of a fiream. However restrictions, as with guns, on types of ammunition are common in the U.S. So how far can government restrict ammunition? Since blackpowder was the propellant in use when the Bill of Rights was written could government mandate only use of blackpowder?

 

[pilotlight]

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century, at a time when there were no police or forces of law enforcement, about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject to their suitability and allowance by law.

I dislike Blackstone. I argue RKBA on moral grounds because that supercedes all of mans' erroneous 'interpretations.'

 

[kwguy]

Since blackpowder was the propellant in use when the Bill of Rights was written could government mandate only use of blackpowder?

Nope, no more so than the 1st amendment limits us to old printing presses. It's a concept, not a technologically limited absolute.

I dislike Blackstone. I argue RKBA on moral grounds because that supercedes all of mans' erroneous 'interpretations.'

I only googled this guy for like... 1/2 second, and then realized it doesn't really matter WHAT he says. You hit that nail on the head. Someone's "interpretation" doesn't matter. It's pretty obvious what the 2A is about.

Again, it's a concept thing. Arms to resist tyranny, as well as for the natural right of self protection (which resistance to tyranny happens to fall right in line with).

If the common weapons are muskets, semi-automatic rifles, fully automatic rifles (don't get me started), or phasers, lasers, phase plasma rifles, whatever, it just doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what weapons the founders could envision or not. It's whatever the weapons are at the time that protect you from tyranny and criminal jerks.

I'd wager a pretty good bet that the founders could imagine fully automatic assault rifles much easier than they could envision the internet. I mean, firearms actually existed back then, but electricity didn't , let alone phone, tv, or whatever. But I'm pretty sure they would not have restricted free speech on the internet and limited it to whatever their current technology was. The same applies to weapons.

Think of it this way. Even animals have the right and tools to protect themselves (claws, and teeth and whatnot). They would never give those up willingly. That's stupid. We don't have claws and stuff. We have brains (sometimes) and opposable thumbs. That allows us to create out OWN claws and teeth in the form of tools (like AR-15's and other stuff like that). Why would we be so stupid as to rid ourselves of those things?

They would probably look at us like we were nuts for even asking such a question about limiting ourselves to certain types of weapons, outside of just musing out loud on a non-eventful day.

 

[JRH6856]

A club is an arm. A rock can be an arm (check with Goliath on that). Without ammunition, a rifle is just a club, and without the rifle, a round of ammunition is little more than a rock (albeit one that might explode). It is the two in combination that make a firearm, and if the 2nd Amendment protects firearms, then both parts of the whole piece must be equally protected. [

QUOTE=BSA1]Today regulations on bullets are common,,,steel shot only for waterfowl, no lead bullets on shooting ranges, hollow point bans.[/QUOTE]

In the quoted example, except, for the hollow point ban (such as in New Jersey), what is regulated by law is use, not access. Use of a right has always been subject to regulation, even those protected by the the various bills of rights in the Federal and state constitutions and charters. The 2nd Amendment says only that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not directly address or protect the right to use those arms. Hence, we have laws and regulations at all levels regarding how and where arms may be used. (Heller clearly says we have a protected right to use arms in self-defense.)

 

[Frank Ettin]

...However restrictions, as with guns, on types of ammunition are common in the U.S. So how far can government restrict ammunition?...

And we won't know until ammunition restrictions begin to be challenged in court. As with any other regulation of a constitutionally protected right, the government, state or federal, seeking to have the regulation sustained will have the burden of convincing a court (and in some cases, ultimately the Supreme Court) that the regulation is acceptable under the applicable level of scrutiny. So government would need to show an important or compelling interest, a sufficient nexus between the protection of that interest and the regulation, and that the regulation is sufficiently narrowed.

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century, at a time when there were no police or forces of law enforcement, about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject to their suitability and allowance by law.

I dislike Blackstone. I argue RKBA on moral grounds because that supercedes all of mans' erroneous 'interpretations.'

However, your dislike of Blackstone is irrelevant.

In ruling on the question a court will be influenced by the legal principles built upon the foundation laid by Blackstone. A court is unlikely to care much, if at all, about your moral opinion.

 

[kwguy]

However, your dislike of Blackstone is irrelevant.

In ruling on the question a court will be influenced by the legal principles built upon the foundation laid by Blackstone. A court is unlikely to care much, if at all, about your moral opinion.

Unfortunately, you have a point. As silly as a precedent may be, that's the conventional behavior. It's unfortunate, especially in something as obvious as the 2A. Current law using the crutch of 'precedent' is kind of a copout in some ways.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...As silly as a precedent may be, that's the conventional behavior. It's unfortunate, especially in something as obvious as the 2A. Current law using the crutch of 'precedent' is kind of a copout in some ways.

Precedent is far from silly. It is part of the foundation of our Common Law based system. The doctrine of state decisis (to stand by the thing decided), or precedent, means that legal principles and interpretations used by a court to decide a dispute will be used by other courts within the same system to decide similar disputes.

It is founded on the notion that similar controversies should be decided in consistent ways. Do you really think it would be satisfactory for any issue decided one way at one time to be decided in a completely different way another time? Because we have the doctrine of stare decisis how courts have decided past cases will give us clues as to how courts are likely to decide future, similar cases. When properly understood, that can help us conduct our affairs in ways that can avoid or minimize legal difficulties.

Whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests. There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the pubic Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.

Most of the time when folks call a decision of a court a bad decision, it isn't really because it didn't comport with the law and precedent. Most people tend to think a court decision is a bad decision because it did not achieve the result they wanted.

And sometimes when precedent and the law as applied by a court don't achieve a satisfactory result, a legislature can change the law -- checks and balances at work. Recently there was the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result.

 

[kwguy]

I get all that, but in some cases it seems kind of 'forest for the trees' for me. I'll just use an analogy. Say some liberal supreme court justice makes a ruling for a very draconian, obviously anti 2A "thingie", and someone years later decides to make a similar ruling based on that original bad one, that is bad precedence. Precedence does not always mean good. There have been many bad precedents set throughout history. I certainly wouldn't want to build on them.

Most people tend to think a court decision is a bad decision because it did not achieve the result they wanted.

I wish I had a time machine, so the founders could comment on some of the court decisions that were made about what they originally wrote (2A related). I think it would be kind of interesting.

 

[Alizard]

Since Heller affirmed a citizen's right to possess and use guns in his own defense, they can make no laws which UNDULY restrict that. Banning ammo would be an undue restriction, but requiring registration of ammo might not. The courts will have to hash all that out.

Most people tend to think a court decision is a bad decision because it did not achieve the result they wanted.

That is absolutely correct. When the SCOTUS hands down a decision they like, they praise them as "courageous visionaries with the integrity to rise above politics and do the right thing."

When they get a decision they don't like, the SCOTUS is illegally making laws from the bench and they should be impeached.... although there actually is no provision for impeaching a member of the SCOTUS......... when I was growing up in Louisiana, I remember an "Impeach Earl Warren" sign on every front lawn.

 

[kwguy]

but requiring registration of ammo might not. The courts will have to hash all that out.

Too much along those lines is left to the courts. Registration doesn't do anything, and is an infringement. For no reason. How do you register ammo? Certainly not without undo infringement

 

[Alizard]

Too much along those lines is left to the courts. Registration doesn't do anything, and is an infringement. For no reason. How do you register ammo? Certainly not without undo infringement

simple: you just require a buyer to show ID and have their name typed into the criminal database to make sure he isn't a convicted felon or gang banger. Whether they keep records of sales would be optional, but criminal record screen would not necessarily be an undue burden if the system is in place to do it quickly.

 

[kwguy]

That's great! If we do that for all ammo, then we wouldn't have to do that for the firearms!

When you swing at that Good Idea Pinata, you never know what'll fall out...

 

[herrwalther]

If the second amendment didn't cover ammunition we would be carrying some very expensive self defense rocks. Because that is what a handgun is without ammunition.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Say some liberal supreme court justice makes a ruling for a very draconian, obviously anti 2A "thingie", and someone years later decides to make a similar ruling based on that original bad one, that is bad precedence. Precedence does not always mean good. There have been many bad precedents set throughout history. I certainly wouldn't want to build on them....

1. The word is "precedent", not "precedence."
   
   
2. You're looking for a system that will guarantee avoidance of what you consider a bad result. There is no such thing.
   
   
3. No system devised and operated by humans will be perfect. And no system will satisfy everyone all the time. So we have a system of checks and balances.
   
   
   • Often whether a result is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder.
     
     
   • In any case, it's not for the court to decide whether a law or precedent is good of bad. It's the job of a court to apply the law and precedent to resolve the dispute at hand. If the result of the law and precedent as applied is unsatisfactory, the law might be unsatisfactory. Changing the law is the province of legislatures, not courts.

 

[joeschmoe]

"Well-regulated" means; "To keep in good working order". Like a watch or printing press. A Militia or arms cannot work without ammo. One of the crucial issues during the revolution was gun powder/salt peter. The battle at Lexington/Concord was the government attempting to seize the powder stored there by the citizens. The framers clearly meant to protect that from government control.

The 2nd Amendment is not a right. It is a specific restriction on government power.

Originally Posted by kwguy
...Say some liberal supreme court justice makes a ruling for a very draconian, obviously anti 2A "thingie", and someone years later decides to make a similar ruling based on that original bad one, that is bad precedence. Precedence does not always mean good. There have been many bad precedents set throughout history. I certainly wouldn't want to build on them....

Read about the Dred Scott, 1857, decision for "bad precedent". It led directly to the civil war, much of it still stood as "law" for over 100 years until the civil rights act in 1964.
The court is not a replacement to the legislature. If the court made a decision we don't like, Congress can simply write a law to fix the "bad" decision. But neither has the power to take away fundamental rights.

BTW, the few 2nd amendment cases in the last 100 years have gone in our favor (mostly). Read Miller, Heller and McDonald.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Read about the Dred Scott, 1857, decision for "bad precedent". It led directly to the civil war, much of it still stood as "law" for over 100 years until the civil rights act in 1964....

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) was decided on the basis of the law as it existed at the time. The decision was substantially obviated by the adoption of the 13th and 14th Amendments in 1865 and 1868, respectively.

 

[beatledog7]

Imagine we're allowed to send our team into the field, and send a batter to the plate with his chosen Louisville Slugger, but baseballs themselves are illegal.

If I were arguing the ammo case, that's where I'd start. It quickly points to how ludicrous is the idea of separating ammo from firearms.

 

[JRH6856]

Imagine we're allowed to send our team into the field, and send a batter to the plate with his chosen Louisville Slugger, but baseballs themselves are illegal.

That would be an interesting game. The batter could throw the bat and run as fast as he could around the bases until someone hit him with it.

 

[BSA1]

As Frank is fond of reminding me from time to time personal opinion does not matter in a Court of Law. Frank does lay some groundwork in Posts 9 & 11.

It is well established that the 2A is subject to a number of conditions (or restrictions). Therefore there would be ample legal basis to apply the same legal reasoning to ammunition. Since certain types of guns are outlawed why not certain types and calibers? Maybe like with Mexico that does not allow citizens to own the caliber and type of ammo the military uses? Or about the type of gunpowder used to reduce the range and speed the bullet can travel? after all black powder has been around a lot longer than smokeless.

My question is you are going before the Supreme Court to argue against banning ammunition. What common law and case law supports your cause?

 

[JRH6856]

Maybe like with Mexico that does not allow citizens to own the caliber and type of ammo the military uses?

Wouldn't that go against US v. Miller? It would seem that military type weapons as calibers might be of use to the militia.

 

[herrwalther]

As Frank is fond of reminding me from time to time personal opinion should not matter in a Court of Law. Frank does lay some groundwork in Posts 9 & 11.

Fixed that for you. Unfortunately there is no way to completely remove bias out of the courts. There is a reason why whenever a new SC justice is nominated, or judge, or any member of the judicial, their past decision history and political party are called into light and repeated. A good recent example is Justice Kagan. When she was nominated by President Obama, a big thorn in her process was a decision she made as dean of Harvard.