What is an arm (2nd ammendment)?

S

subsonicenthusiast

Inactive
In my opinion, an arm as described in the 2nd ammendment, means absolutely any weapon. The only solid modern argument to that is: "if they knew what weapons would be designed in the future, they wouldn't have worded the 2nd that way".

My whole point her is, that this is a huge problem for SCOTUS. Eventually, they will have to decide what arms are protected under the 2nd. Personally, I hope they are successful with that problem for a very simple reason.

If we keep pressing the, 2nd covers all weapons argument, we will force a Constitutional convention which will water down the 2nd ammendment with a new one (kind of like the ammendment that killed the prohibition ammendment).

Personally, I like Tennessee's firearm freedom act definition of a covered arm.
SECTION 6. Section 5 of this act shall not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one (1) person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than one and one half (1
½) inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of
chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) A firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation
of the trigger or other firing device.
 
I think the term is defined nicely by a quote from the Supreme Court's D.C. v. Heller decision, quoting from an influential 18th-century legal dictionary.
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.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). 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.”
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

Note that Cunningham uses the term "a man". Arms are generally designed to be carried and used by a single person rather than a team of people. This usually excludes devices so large that they must be carried in a vehicle or mounted in a stationary position (catapults and cannons in the 18th century and earlier; howitzers, missiles, and smart bombs today).
 
It’s funny how limited the sight of courts and people are.... At the time of the revolutionary war you could own pretty much whatever... cannons, grenades even muskets that had a repeating action and all with no background checks, no licenses and no ATF..... And yet believe it or not the world didn’t come to an end...

Heck you could even own barrels of black powder...... The courts generally have sought to narrow what was to a definition that fits their view of the current world not the actual intent of the founders.

All nations eventually fall in time and how many every century down the road our nation falls I hope the writers of the next constitution make even passing a law with the most minor restriction of arms a capital offense and they better spell out the right in volumes as the legal system cant understand anything any other way.
 
Ok, I'll take a shot...:)

Laws nearly always follow sometime after innovations, so no matter how insightful legislators may be, sooner or later a designer or engineer will develop a 'better mousetrap' that doesn't qualify as a weapon (or prohibited drug, or whatever else may be outlawed).

Subsonic... said:
Personally, I like Tennessee's firearm freedom act definition of a covered arm.
SECTION 6. Section 5 of this act shall not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one (1) person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than one and one half (1
½) inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of
chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) A firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation
of the trigger or other firing device.
Click to expand...

What if the weapon doesn't use smokeless or black powder, has a variable bore diameter, uses a magnetic field for propulsion, delivers a payload of photons, electrons or other ultra-high-energy particles? How about a weapon that causes a target to explode but uses no explosives? "Weapons" with all of these qualities exist today. Is any device that shoots out photons a weapon, ala a flashlight? How about non-lethal weapons that don't affect everyone (like the 'vomit lights' that don't work on color blind individuals).

If a small rail gun can cause a lightweight projectile to bust through an engine block at long distances, but only uses electric and magnetic fields for propulsion, was a crime committed using a weapon? I expect that many states / countries couldn't prosecute such an action in that category.

A sharp dreamer or designer will always be able to circumvent a specific law (but may run afoul of others in the process).
 
Personally, I like Tennessee's firearm freedom act definition of a covered arm.
SECTION 6. Section 5 of this act shall not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one (1) person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than one and one half (1
½) inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of
chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) A firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation
of the trigger or other firing device.
Click to expand...
Really?

So if I load up a Taurus Judge with .410 rounds and carry it around in a belt holster under my jacket ... it's not a covered arm in Tennessee? KEWL!
 
Now, just how many privately owned cannon or repeating muskets do you supposed there were at the time of the revolution. Social conventions at the time even meant that only "gentlemen" (men of gentle birth) could carry a sword. However, those were precisely the same men who officered the militia. Not like that today.
 
It’s funny how limited the sight of courts and people are.... At the time of the revolutionary war you could own pretty much whatever... cannons, grenades even muskets that had a repeating action and all with no background checks, no licenses and no ATF..... And yet believe it or not the world didn’t come to an end...
Click to expand...

I see your point; but historically I think the definition of arms that carguychris described closely matches how the founders defined the term. There may have been no regulations on the ownership of ordnance or artillery; but nobody would have likely considered artillery as "arms" (at least not until the UN started classifying helicopter gun ships and double-barrel fowling pieces in the same category).
 
At the time of the Revolution, or more importantly, after the Constitution was ratified (12 years after the Declaration of Independence), women could not vote, slaves could not do anything, poor or illiterate people mostly could not vote and in fact a significant portion of the remaining adult population did not have arms and had to be furnished them in order to enable them to take their place in the militia, which, just like the Swiss sytem, was mandatory, not voluntary. It was not yet a perfect world, even after the Constitution.
 
At the time of the revolutionary war you could own pretty much whatever... cannons, grenades even muskets that had a repeating action and all with no background checks, no licenses and no ATF....
Click to expand...
And the only thing that has changed is the grenades are not unrestricted...;)
The rest... well you don't need a background check for that 8" smoothbore cannon...:D
Brent
 
a significant portion of the remaining adult population did not have arms and had to be furnished them in order to enable them to take their place in the militia
Click to expand...

Proving exactly my point that they were unrestricted... The arguement Im making isnt about being unaffordable its about you had the right to own it...
 
Can't recall the exact source, one of the founders I believe referring to our right to arms covering "all the terrible implements of the soldier", or something very close to that.

The key point today, I think, comes down to your reading of "infringed" vs the courts concept of reasonable restrictions.

The fact of the matter is, that as a citizen (with no disqualifying criminal record) you are not prohibited by law from owning ANY or ALL military arms, with the exception of Nuclear Weapons. You may not be able to own them in all locations, but there is somewhere in the US you can live, where it is legal.

You can own machineguns, grenades, anti tank rockets, howitzers, tanks, cannon, jet airplanes, bombs, even a battleship, if you want, and can afford it.

These things are legal to own, by private citizens. There are extensive licenses needed, that's true, and they aren't even remotely cheap (certainly beyond the economic means of the common man, but so were cannon and warships during the 1700s), but if you have the patience, clean record, and above all the cash, you can own them in the US today.

Historically, the govt has placed huge restrictons on owning live weapons like bombs and such, but hasn't completely outlawed private ownership, only restricted it.

Historically all these items also have been for sale on the open market, at one time or another. A very small market for civilians, true, but one that did/does exist.

Nuclear weapons, are a differnt case, NEVER having been on the open market, a completely government created and owned item. Civilian ownership of special nuclear material is highly restricted, above trace quantities used for research. In fact, at one time the govt didn't have a law saying you couldn't own a nuclear weapon (they probably do today), but the had laws saying you couldn't buy one, or the material to make one, so it amounted to the same thing.

So I would say the intent of the second amendment is that all military weapons be legally available to us. It doesn't say they have to be easy to obtain, common, or affordable, only implies that the govt not prohibit us from some legal path of ownership.

The fact is, and the SCOTUS has basically affirned that as long as we are not outright prohibited, we're not being infringed.

OF course, many of our opinions vary on that.
 
44 AMP said:
Can't recall the exact source, one of the founders I believe referring to our right to arms covering "all the terrible implements of the soldier", or something very close to that.
Click to expand...

Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

http://www.sightm1911.com/Care/Gun_Quotes.htm
 
carguychris said:
Note that Cunningham uses the term "a man". Arms are generally designed to be carried and used by a single person rather than a team of people.
Click to expand...

Cunningham's definition fits your view of the matter. However, the section of Heller you cited also gives Johnson's definition, which does not have language to suggest a single-person limitation. Since Johnson and Cunningham's dictionaries were contemporaneous, they could be equally valid. Then again, Johnson's definition was cited first in Heller, so it must be better. :D
 
According to the court the poll tax was illegal ,voting is a right . Taking that track it would seem that charging any fee for something that is a right infringes my rights.
 
It is well to remember here (again) that the purpose of the militia was not to enable us to overthrow the government but to prevent that from happening. And it was soon used during the first presidency to actually put down a rebellion. But I have no problems with ordinary people owning weapons.

People in other countries do, for entirely reasonable and understandable causes and that goes back a long ways. In England, even before the Act of the Union, they looked across the channel and saw continual wars and had even recently experienced it themselves and wanted no part of it. But fortunately for them the channel was wide and fortunately for us, the oceans are even wider. And that's just part of it.

It is curious that the original constitution makes little mention, if any, of voting rights. In their wisdom, they probably didn't want to produce a government that controlled every aspect of life.
 
Thank you Aguila for sourcing that quote.

Charging a fee does indeed infringe on a natural right.

BUT, one has to consider just what that right actually is, as recognised by the govt.

As long as there is some other method of meeting the right, one is not forced to pay a fee to exercise it. One has the right to travel, but toll roads existed back then, and exist now. No one is forced to use them.

But not using them may be extremely inconvenient.
Having to pay a fee for a pistol license is not held to be infringment, today, as long as there are other options allowing you to be armed (rifles, shotguns).

Sure, its not as good for some things (and virtually impossible for others), but govt is not denying us our rights. So the courts have said. Check Heller vs DC, and see.
 
You may not be able to own them in all locations, but there is somewhere in the US you can live, where it is legal.
Click to expand...

After McDonald, incorporation should make the 2nd evenly interpreted throughout the country (at least in theory).
 
In the core constitution (pre-amendments) you find that one of the powers of congress is the ability to issue "letters of marque".

You know what THAT means, right?

Yup. Privately owned battleships. The correct term is "Privateers".

And that was the single most effective military implement of it's day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top