looks like body armor is covered by heller too

[30 cal slob]

only bringing this up b/c i think there is pending legislation in ny to outlaw it altogether (except for LEO/military).

page 7. opinion refers to 1771 legal dictionary, defining "arms" as "anything that a man wears for his defence..."

 

[Z-Michigan]

Good news on the Heller decision. Crazy news on NYS law. Totally nuts. Their philosophy must be that each subject's life is merely borrowed from the state.

 

[ServiceSoon]

It is amazing what you can find when looking. Excellent work!

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

How realistic is this?


Is this a joke?



Because body armor definitely isn't an "arm".





.

 

[Maxinquaye]

Whoah. Does this mean automatic knives could be okey-dokie too?

 

[Picard]

I think the body armor ruling is vital to the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. A militia is a citizen soldier and soldiers wear body armor. In today's day and age, body armor does make the difference between life and death.

 

[Uenoparker]

Yeah, agreed. I took some heart from that point in Scalia's text. I think he inserted quite a few interesting things that may play out well. For example, there's mention of swords in at least one of his quotations about the definition of arms. Too, he mentioned that one historic purpose for the militia is to resist the actions of an abusive government -- did he open the door to legally recognizing certain grounds for rebellion/secession? Not advocating, just wondering...

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Apparently, the only thing this ruling has done is make Fenty open the handgun registry again. They're still keeping the total ban on carry, apparently. So much for "keep and bear" being considered an individual right. Has Heller really accomplished very much?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[lacoochee]

Yes, once a large number of handguns find their way back into civilian hand in D.C. they may start pushing for even more rights at the ballot box.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Aye. Only in a round-about fashion will it effect change. The more people taste truth and freedom, the more they want.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[LB7_Driver]

Apparently, the only thing this ruling has done is make Fenty open the handgun registry again....
-Sans Authoritas

The Heller case was very narrowly argued. This was done intentionally, for strategic reasons. I don't LIKE it, though its still a "win".

Perhaps future cases can be tied with the decision that requiring a license, fee or tax to exercise a right is unconstitutional.
Was that a SCOTUS decision, or am I thinking of the 24th amendment?

 

[SageMonkey]

Because body armor definitely isn't an "arm".

While placing the 2A in historical context, Scalia quoted materials which would seem to indicate that worn armor IS an arm.

 

[dogmush]

Yes, once a large number of handguns find their way back into civilian hand in D.C. they may start pushing for even more rights at the ballot box.

Aye. Only in a round-about fashion will it effect change. The more people taste truth and freedom, the more they want.

Isin't that a good thing? I know Heller was purposly narrow. I would think that of all the ways we have of changing govt. the ballot box is the perferred way.

 

[borntwice]

Godly leaders are the preferred way of changing government. May we have many who are raised up!

 

[Jamie C.]

Because body armor definitely isn't an "arm".

Are you familiar with the term "A coat of arms"?

That's a design painted on a shield or armor, traditionally. A coat = paint . Of arms = ON arms. ( arms = a shield or armor.)

And never mind that whole bit in the ruling about recognizing that people have a right to self-defense, and the means of accomplishing it.


Yeah, I can see where body armor is covered.


J.C.

 

[Solo]

only bringing this up b/c i think there is pending legislation in ny to outlaw it altogether (except for LEO/military).

page 7. opinion refers to 1771 legal dictionary, defining "arms" as "anything that a man wears for his defence..."

My pants?

 

[Solo]

Doubletap

 

[Robert Hairless]

Has Heller really accomplished very much?

Nope, not in the almost twelve whole hours since the decision was first published. Whatever shall we do tomorrow?

 

[coloradokevin]

Apparently, the only thing this ruling has done is make Fenty open the handgun registry again. They're still keeping the total ban on carry, apparently. So much for "keep and bear" being considered an individual right. Has Heller really accomplished very much?


...

Aye. Only in a round-about fashion will it effect change. The more people taste truth and freedom, the more they want.

Well, Sans, we are definitely on the exact same page on this ruling (which isn't all that common for us, I must admit!!!)

 

[ozwyn]

well, we have a lot more fighting to go. But now we know that isntead of supporting politicians with short memories and a habit of backstabbing, the bulk of the effort should be in courtrooms.

it changes the emphasis IMO from legestlative exclusively pre-heller to much more balanced legestlative/judicial fights.

Heller sets some basic foundations for future fights, but I do not think it can be stretched much farther than that.

 

[Erik]

I'll weigh in that body armor is an "arm," that it is not a "common arm," and that regulations restricting and/or prohibiting it will be upheld and/or enacted along those lines.

 

[azredhawk44]

I'll weigh in that body armor is an "arm," that it is not a "common arm," and that regulations restricting and/or prohibiting it will be upheld and/or enacted along those lines.

Then we need to hurry up and make it more common.

Although... all police have it. That must be around 500,000 people or so in the US, maybe more. And all armed forces members have it. There's another 500,000 or so.

A million pieces of body armor, not counting civilian owned armor? Probably another million or two there as well. Sounds like there is just as much or more in civie pop than in LEO/Mil pop.

Perhaps "Common Use" as proposed by Scalia should be determined as a function of raw numbers. After all, there are 200,000 weapons on the full auto registry, and about 500,000 in the armed forces. That's pretty common, IMO, in comparison to what our government sees as enough to defend the country.

 

[NotEnoughSand]

Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another."

BUT

Thus, the most natural reading of "keep Arms" in the Second Amendment is to "have weapons."

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Body armor is legal in MN.


You just can't wear it in the commission of a crime. If you do, it's a misdemeanor.

Which I suppose isn't so bad if your wearing it to hold someone up at gunpoint.

 

[Caimlas]

Body armor isn't an arm? Surely you're joking.