I get
so tired of addressing this particular line of nonsense that I spent some time looking for relevant court cases that had ruled on this.
I found this one and have been using it to address that question:
Quote:
State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P. 2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980)
"We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."
"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."
|
Using this decision or the words of the founding fathers, where would you draw the line on what constitutes an "arm" (and is therefore protected) and what constitutes "ordnance" (and is therefore not protected).
Is an M203 an arm?
Is a 20mm Lahti ordnance?