The right to bear arms...DEFINE ARMS

[Marko Kloos]

Besides, while the theoretical damage potential of heavy field ordnance is much higher than that of personal hand weapons, the potential for criminal misuse is much lower.

If someone were to rob a bank, which tool would be more conducive to success: a .45 on the belt, or a towed 105mm howitzer? It's not like anyone is going to let you unlimber and set up that piece right in front of the bank building, and it's hard to do without anyone noticing it.

[Tamara]

An F16 requires a crew.

A battleship requires a crew.

A missle requires a crew.

An F16 is a single-seat aircraft.

Which missiles require crews? If it's a single-operator, infantry-toted missile like a Dragon or Stinger, it's cool then?

A 203mm gun can be operated by one guy yanking the lanyard. Sure, he might be a little slow on the reloads...

Are you aware that cannon are legal to own? (You do have to go through all that "Destructive Device" folderol, though) Plane Trader is full of single- and two-seat fighter aircraft, BTW...

[dog3]

The only test that "arms" has been subjected
to in the US Supreme Court, was US vs
Miller.

Here is the summary opinion delivered
by Justice McReynolds.
---------------------------------------

MCREYNOLDS, J., Opinion of the Court

MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

An indictment in the District Court, Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton

did unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 737, Sec. 4 [§ 5], 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 2, United States Code (June 26, 1934, c. 737, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the "National Firearms Act," approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States. [n1] [p*176]

A duly interposed demurrer alleged: the National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure, but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [p*177]

The District Court held that section eleven of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.

The cause is here by direct appeal.

Considering Sonzinsky v. United States (1937), 300 U.S. 506, 513, and what was ruled in sundry causes arising [p*178] under the Harrison Narcotic Act [n2] -- United States v. Jin Fuey Moy (1916), 241 U.S. 394, United States v. Doremus (1919), 249 U.S. 86, 94; Linder v. United States (1925), 268 U.S. 5; Alston v. United States (1927), 274 U.S. 289; Nigro v. United States (1928), 276 U.S. 332 -- the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

--------------------------------------------

So, The US Supreme Court has upheld
that any firearm "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" it is protected
under the 2nd Amendment.

Currently, that would apply to any small
arm in inventory, including all those
that preceeded it.

In retrospect, for those of you who care,
a shotgun having a barrel of less than
18" in length did indeed exist in the armory
inventory of the US at the time. The Justices
were unaware of this, as the only party giving testemony at the appeal was the
BATF. To be kind, the BATF was misinformed. Others have stated that they
perhaps misrepresented the truth under
oath.

--------------------------------------

Let me state this again,
ALL GUN LAWS are repugnant to the
constitution and should be repealed.

There is no middle ground on this issue
AT ALL.

I've said before many times, there may
in fact be reasonable gun legislation, but
I have certainly never heard of it.

[another okie]

He's not asking what we would have in an ideal world, but about a good response to the typical anti ploy, "You guys think insane wife beaters should be allowed to have nuclear weapons." A good response is that

"Law-abiding citizens have the right to weapons appropriate to their status as members of the militia, and that right is guaranteed by the Constitution. We may have other rights as well, which are not spelled out in the Constitution, and which we can discuss another time."

[OF]

Others have stated that they perhaps misrepresented the truth under oath.

No! I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you! The BATF would never do anything unseemly. They're our friends. Just like everyone else in gov't. Just there to secure our rights. :barf:

- Gabe

[Blackhawk]

Define arms?

Germanguns did: weapons.

Are we ready to start discussing the START and SALT treaties which use the term "Strategic Arms" in their titles...?

What were strategic arms in 1789 or were there any? Of course there were! Ships with cannon were just that.

Maybe we'd better define "bear" here too. Uh, oh.... Webster's 1828 dictionary: "To possess and use as power" -- not just carry....

So why is it again that I can't own a fully equipped boomer or two under the 2A? (Never can tell. I might need one to act on a Letter or Marque Congress might issue to me under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.)

Might it have something to do with "The People's" rights to be "secure", which gives them the right to do a bit of regulating...?

The unfettered limit of my rights is where they infringe on somebody else's rights, so I guess I'll have to accept the reasonable limitations on my 2A right to keep and bear a boomer being subject to proving that there isn't going to be an accident, negligent maintenance, and all that stuff. Just as well. I'd probably end up maxing out my Visa card getting one....

[Futo Inu]

Please allow me to quote what I said in a recent thread on this subject and more called "The Militia Act", with a couple of minor additions:

"Arms" in 2A=small arms carried by the CONTEMPORARY standing army, including anything that can be humped by a squad without wheels, including grenades, small mortars, and RPGs - no restrictions at all (the 2A is roughly 10% about self-defense, and 90% about militia use, which includes all small arms.) If you don't like the RPG stuff (think it's too dangerous for no restrictions - arguable), then propose a const. amendment to restrict the meaning of arms in the 2A to small arms with non-explosive round (i.e. limited to kinetic energy rounds only, propelled by expanding gases, capable of being carried by a soldier, or by a squad when divied up). Cuz right now, "arms" in the 2A, it seems to me, includes whatever small arms the soldier in the standing army carries.

As for larger items and heavy ordnance (20 mm plus, etc.), what we need is that same sort of licensing scheme that NOW exists (unconstitutionally) on machine guns, etc. The stringency of the licensing scheme (background check, etc.) goes up commensurately with the risk of harm of the ordnance, eventually drawing the ban line at nukes, or maybe not even then, given stringent enough licensing requirements.

[Tamara]

As for larger items and heavy ordnance (20 mm plus, etc.), what we need is that same sort of licensing scheme that NOW exists (unconstitutionally) on machine guns, etc.

The licensing scheme right now for a 20mm ATR, a 105mm howitzer or a belt-fed 40mm AGL is exactly the same one as for machine guns.

[OF]

"Arms" in 2A=small arms carried by the CONTEMPORARY standing army, including anything that can be humped by a squad without wheels, including grenades, small mortars, and RPGs - no restrictions at all (the 2A is roughly 10% about self-defense, and 90% about militia use, which includes all small arms.)

How did you come to this 10/90% thing? And what evidence do you have that the 2nd is limited to 'anything that can be humped by a squad without wheels'?

I've never seen anything that spelled out these limitations.

- Gabe

[KSFreeman]

The Second Amendment is 100% militree use in defense of our liberties against foreign and domestic enemies. The 2A has nothing to do with personal self-defense.

[Ladybug]

Not to get into the what *should* be allowed debate (I'm feeling uncharacteristically timid tonight).... I would just wonder what the consequences of unlimited accessibility would be. If you look at people who want to use arms for legal purposes (self-defense, hunting, target-shooting, etc.) they would really not have any need to use nuclear weapons and such (though I hear that Saddam Hussain likes to fish with hand grenades)... Personally I would like to leave the kind of defense that requires missles to my military. But if you look at the people would stand to gain from legalization of ALL weapons, it would be those who intend to commit mass murder, acts of terrorism, etc. Right? So, do I want THOSE guys to have access to anything and everything... no.

[OF]

I have a suspicious feeling that you are baiting with that statement, KS...but here goes anyway:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self defense."
-- John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-- Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria

It is clear that the framers intended the 2nd Amendment to insure the people retained the right of self-defense, which includes defense of the free state from tyrants and defense of the self from common attack.

- Gabe

[UnknownSailor]

I believe any definition of "arms" has to be dependant on the word that appears just before arms, "bear". So then, keeping in mind that 2 word combo, "bear arms", I would define arms, in this context, as anything able to be carried and fired by one man.

[OF]

I'm not so sure I agree with you on that one, Sailor. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the right of the people to keep arms and to bear arms.

- Gabe

[MAKOwner]

I consider it to mean any man portable small arm, up to and including the likes of the .50 cal.

[Christopher II]

Anything. Up to and including WMDs.

- Chris

[ctdonath]

NOWHERE in the Constitution is there ANY limitation on what arms may be owned.
NOWHERE in the Constitution is there ANY provision for government "allowing" arms ownership.

The ONLY Constitutional "restriction" comes from "letters of marqe", and that is a matter of international relations: the permission to essentially wage a private war, with the presumption that a crew already had the weapons systems (battleships at the time) needed to carry out the permitted attack.

This common "only single-troop weapons allowed" theory shows a grotesque misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment. There is no "small" prefex to "arms". There is no "allowed" limiting "shall not be infringed".

What the "small arms only" crowd is trying to do (without trying very hard) is limit access to WMDs. Instead of trying to draw a line based on portability (which is absurd due to the availability of "suitcase nukes"), they should try applying The Four Rules: if someone violates one or more of The Four Rules, others have the inherent right to protect themselves from that person...especially if all the rules are violated, as would be most cases of civilian ownership of WMDs.

[Drjones]

Ct: I understand what you are saying, and you are correct.

However, on a purely realistic, pragmatic level, there is simply no way possible to allow individuals to own WMD, simply because of the ND possibility. In a military setting, things are FAR more controlled than they would be if Joe Blow had a nuke in his closet. Or an RPG. Or a mortar. The chances of killing others is clearly far higher with ordinance, esp. WMD, than with a single bullet.

Theoretically it would be nice, but as I said, realistically I just do not think its possible.

OTOH, if any and all weapons were perfectl legal, you'd have to wonder if anyone at all would be able to buy them. Can anyone here afford a tank? How 'bout $30 mil for an F-14?

The financial obstacles are way too large, so perhaps we could allow people to own whatever they want, knowing they would not be able to.

Rather than argue the 2A all day, someone who supports individuals being able to own everything and anything, up to and including WMD, please explain to me how safety issues would be addressed.

[444]

One thing to keep in mind is that there are people who live in areas where virtually anything under the sun could be safely fired. I live only a few miles from the Nevada Test Range. For those of you not familiar, above ground nuclear testing has been done there. As ridiculous as it is, I could safely fire a howizer within a few miles of my house and not endanger anyone.

[Joe Demko]

We very recently discussed this.

My opinion hasn't changed. High explosives become less stable as they degrade. I don't want my neighbor storing hundreds of pounds of the stuff if he isn't doing it right. The military stores the stuff away from people in carefully constructed storage bunkers. don't want Jimmy-Joe JimBob next door just piling it up in the basement and letting it degrade.

Your right to keep and bear arms is superseded by my right to not be blown up because of your ignorance or carelessness.

I was a combat engineer, so I am not irrationally afraid of explosives.

[MitchSchaft]

If it takes a bouncing betty or an RPG to use my God-given right to self defense, then so be it.
Some of you proclaimed "Pro 2A supporters" still have a long way to go.

[Drjones]

Apparently Mitch skipped over the above post by Golgo.

[MitchSchaft]

That post inspired my reply.

[Joe Demko]

Here's an example of what happens when ignorance and explosives are mingled.

Now you want to explain to me why just anybody should be able to possess the stuff w/o qualification or regulation?

[ctdonath]

The problem with WMDs and large explosives is they are inherently "pointed" at everyone within range (and that can be a very big range), so they violate Cooper's Rule #2, and as such you can move against anyone who is storing them improperly. If, however, someone CAN & DOES store it properly (as 444 describes), there isn't a problem so leave 'em alone.

It's a self-correcting problem: those who don't handle & maintain their arms properly may be appropriately dealt with by others. It's not a matter of permission or licensing, it's a matter of other citizens being able to maintain the security of a free state by keeping & bearing arms against those who actually threaten that security.