2nd amendment definition of "arms"

Threeband · Mar 6, 2018

I had to chase three Redcoats and a Hessian out of my guest room the other night.

eruby · Mar 6, 2018

Zzzzz_man said:

My Cousin ~~Vinnie~~ Vladimir!

Threeband said:
I had to chase three Redcoats and a Hessian out of my guest room the other night.

Hector Heathcoat approves!

Jim12 · Mar 6, 2018

kcbrown said:
What it does is give a baseline reason for protecting the right, with implications for the minimum amount of protection the right must be afforded. It does not say that the baseline reason is the only reason, or that the right is limited to that which the reason covers.

Put another way, because of the militia clause, we know that arms which are required for the militia to fulfill its duty to maintain the "security of a free state" are protected. All of them. The historical context makes it clear what the militia must be able to do: achieve military victory against a standing army. That context makes it clear what arms at a minimum must be protected: all arms which might be deployed by a military force against an enemy.

The nature of what is protected is timeless in nature. The weapons on the battlefield change over time due to technological progress. The 2nd Amendment is intended to ensure that the militia has whatever it needs to prevail on the battlefield at whatever time it may have to engage an enemy. If the enemy might have tanks, then the 2nd Amendment protects tanks and anything that might be needed to destroy them. If the enemy might have missiles, then the 2nd Amendment protects missiles, and anything that might defend against them. This extends to any and every weapon the enemy might possess, for without (at a minimum) the same arms as those the enemy possesses, the militia might well fail at its duty whereas with those arms it would succeed. The militia cannot fail in this duty, for such failure spells the doom of liberty and of the very purpose for the country's existence.

Obviously, self-defense is another purpose for the 2nd Amendment's protection. It's not explicitly spelled out in the Amendment, likely because the authors thought it to be so obvious that it wasn't necessary. Heller provides ample evidence and argument for why the right encompasses self-defense. But Heller errs in its claim that the right can be arbitrarily disconnected from militia service such that military weaponry (such as machine guns) would not be protected by it. To insist on that is to insist either that the prefatory clause has no purpose (and to thus run squarely into Marbury v Madison), or to insist on "interpreting" the prefatory clause in a manner that differs from the original intended meaning, an act which undermines the entire foundation of law (see this for why that is so).

Excellent post.

ChannelCat · Mar 6, 2018

Pistols, rifles, and shotguns; anything that is not crew operated.

...and, yes, that would include class 3.

cowboy321 · Mar 6, 2018

sports89man7 said:
hey guys i was wondering if we could start a debate on the legal definition of arms in the 2nd amendment. now if you look at the 2nd amendment, where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS" now my question is that the term "arms" is used in a very broad way. does the word "arms" include assault rifles and machine guns and class 3? ill let you be the judge.

EDIT: sorry i had to go but ill elaborate on this subject. lets just say congress puts in an assault rifle ban. could one go to court and argue that the ban is unconstitutional because the 2nd amendment does not elaborate on what kinds of arms that are protected by the 2nd amendment? im only asking this because it brings up a very good argument.

If semi and fully auto firearms were envisioned in the 1700's would the founders have allowed individual purchase? The Flintlock was commonly owned and brought when a militia had to muster to fight Brits and Indians. It was a tad slow to reload. Should Americans be able to buy rifle grenades, Stinger Anti Aircraft rockets, M60's, RPGs and Claymore mines? These are not crew served weapons. Don't hold your breath waiting for a Stinger.

Vic · Mar 6, 2018

God pretty much issues two arms to everyone at birth. That shows me it is a natural right.

pcfixer · Mar 6, 2018

Vic said:
God pretty much issues two arms to everyone at birth. That shows me it is a natural right.

Yep... AND.... Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag;
and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

pcfixer · Mar 6, 2018

1. Gun control is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government

Our federal Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government any power over the Country at Large 2 to restrict our arms. Accordingly, all pretended federal laws, regulations, orders, opinions, or treaties which purport to do so are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. They are also unconstitutional as in violation of the Second Amendment.

The only power the federal government has over the Country at Large respecting arms is set forth at Article I, §8, clause 16 with respect to providing for the “organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”. Pursuant to this clause, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792 which required every able-bodied male citizen (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and 45 to acquire a rifle, bayonet, ammo, ammo pouch, and report to his local Militia Unit for training. 3

2. What does your State Constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms?
Each State has its own Constitution which addresses its State Militia and the right to be armed.
Now listen: No State may lawfully make any law which contradicts its State Constitution or which interferes with Congress’ power to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia”.

Accordingly, any State Statute which purports to require a permit before one may carry a gun is probably unconstitutional under that State’s Constitution; and is certainly unconstitutional under the federal Constitution because Congress may lawfully require able-bodied male Citizens to acquire firearms and ammo and report to their local Militia Unit for training!
Do you see?
Now let’s look at Title 18, US Code, Part I, Chapter 44, which HR 38 proposes to amend.
3. Title 18, US Code, Part I, Chapter 44 is unconstitutional
It sets up a complex federal regulatory scheme over firearms, every word of which is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated, and as in violation of the Second Amendment.

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/2nd-amendment/

Also see John Locke...https://polsci101.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/locknload/

OH.. Heller vs. DC. https://cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm

Operative Clause. In Scalia's view, the text and history of the amendment's operative clause (i.e., “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) is controlling. “The people” refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset, such as the militia; the phrase to “keep and bear arms” means to have weapons and carry them, and not just in a military context; and “the right of the people” refers to a preexisting right. Scalia reasons that these textual elements show that the amendment “guarantee(s) the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” and that the amendment's text implicitly recognizes the preexistence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed” (Id., at 2790-2797). Congress merely codified a widely recognized right; it did not create a new right (Id., at 2797).

copasetic · Mar 6, 2018

Vic said:
God pretty much issues two arms to everyone at birth. That shows me it is a natural right.

Yeah, but do you really need all those fingers? I think 10 is a bit much... and what if you fold them into a fist? Does one really need two fists?

To be honest, for most antis I only need one finger.

JohnnyE · Mar 6, 2018

copasetic said:
Yeah, but do you really need all those fingers? I think 10 is a bit much... and what if you fold them into a fist? Does one really need two fists?

To be honest, for most antis I only need one finger.

A one word vocabulary. This ain't it :thumbsup:

Neither is this :tdown:

kcbrown · Mar 6, 2018

cowboy321 said:
If semi and fully auto firearms were envisioned in the 1700's would the founders have allowed individual purchase?

Of course they would. They had just come out of a shooting war against a well-organized and strong military opponent. Do you really think they'd just turn around and say "well, tyranny's never going to happen again so we don't need to bother protecting anything other than the weakest weapons". You'd have to be an absolute moron to believe anything of the sort, and you'd implicitly be claiming that the founders were idiots as well.

The Flintlock was commonly owned and brought when a militia had to muster to fight Brits and Indians. It was a tad slow to reload. Should Americans be able to buy rifle grenades, Stinger Anti Aircraft rockets, M60's, RPGs and Claymore mines? These are not crew served weapons. Don't hold your breath waiting for a Stinger.

Americans should be able to purchase any and all kinds of weapons, because they might need them in order to defeat a tyrannical government.

Or is it your belief that the people shouldn't be able to free themselves from tyranny?

That's really what it comes down to. Do you believe the people should be able to free themselves from tyranny or not? If you do, then you must believe that they have the right to the means to do so, because they won't succeed without it, and a "right" to do something isn't a right at all unless it is accompanied by the right to acquire and possess the means to accomplish it (this is why the right to free speech protects acquisition, ownership, and use of the various implements that one can use to engage in speech).

If you don't, then you clearly don't believe the founders had the right to free themselves from the British government in the first place. It would mean that you don't believe people should be free at all, since one doesn't have the right to be free if one doesn't have the right to become free. And that would make you supportive of the very types of governments that have caused so many of the atrocities seen throughout history -- very nearly all have happened at the hands of a government that had taken liberty from its people.

eruby · Mar 6, 2018

Vic said:
God pretty much issues two arms to everyone at birth. That shows me it is a natural right.

Thalidomide babies weep.

Haides · Mar 6, 2018

kcbrown said:
Of course they would. They had just come out of a shooting war against a well-organized and strong military opponent. Do you really think they'd just turn around and say "well, tyranny's never going to happen again so we don't need to bother protecting anything other than the weakest weapons". You'd have to be an absolute moron to believe anything of the sort.

Americans should be able to purchase any and all kinds of weapons, because they might need them in order to defeat a tyrannical government.

Or is it your belief that the people shouldn't be able to free themselves from tyranny?

That's really what it comes down to. Do you believe the people should be able to free themselves from tyranny or not? If you do, then you must believe that they have the right to the means to do so, because they won't succeed without it, and a "right" to do something isn't a right at all unless it is accompanied by the right to acquire and possess the means to accomplish it (this is why the right to free speech protects acquisition, ownership, and use of the various implements that one can use to engage in speech).

If you don't, then you clearly don't believe the founders had the right to free themselves from the British government in the first place. It would mean that you don't believe people should be free at all, since one doesn't have the right to be free if one doesn't have the right to become free. And that would make you supportive of the very types of governments that have caused so many of the atrocities seen throughout history -- very nearly all have happened at the hands of a government that had taken liberty from its people.

Playing devil's advocate here...

Are full-auto firearms really necessary to combat tyranny though? Are semi-auto rifles significantly less capable than select-fire rifles in combat? From what I hear from friends in the Army, they are trained not to use the full auto or 3-round burst modes on their rifles, as doing so drastically reduces accuracy and is generally a waste of ammo.

kcbrown · Mar 6, 2018

Haides said:
Playing devil's advocate here...

Are full-auto firearms really necessary to combat tyranny though? Are semi-auto rifles significantly less capable than select-fire rifles in combat? From what I hear from friends in the Army, they are trained not to use the full auto or 3-round burst modes on their rifles, as doing so drastically reduces accuracy and is generally a waste of ammo.

And yet, they continue to have full auto available to them anyway.

You don't restrict the capability of your arms, most especially if you know you're going to be taking them into combat where your life and the lives of your compatriots will depend on them.

So when you ask "is X necessary" in the context of the arms one would be wielding against an opponent, you're asking the wrong question. The right question is "is there any possibility that X might prove useful". For our armed forces as regards the question of full auto, quite clearly the answer is "yes, it might prove useful". Because in battle, it has proven useful. And that means that the answer is the same for the militia.

If an enemy might possess a given weapon or given weapon capability, then you need to, as well, if only to even the odds. This is what the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect. It is moronic to claim that the founders intended the militia to be at any disadvantage in arms against the opponents they might be facing, most especially in light of their mission: to preserve the security of a free state. As I stated before, failure of that mission means the death of liberty and of the very purpose for which the country was founded. It is idiocy of the highest order to believe that the founders intended to see the militia fail in that duty, and yet that is exactly what one is arguing if one argues that the militia shouldn't have at least the same weapons as any enemy it might face.

j_h_smith · Mar 6, 2018

Haides said:
Playing devil's advocate here...

Are full-auto firearms really necessary to combat tyranny though? Are semi-auto rifles significantly less capable than select-fire rifles in combat? From what I hear from friends in the Army, they are trained not to use the full auto or 3-round burst modes on their rifles, as doing so drastically reduces accuracy and is generally a waste of ammo.

The person who wins will, more than likely, be the person to go pew pew more.

copasetic · Mar 6, 2018

Haides said:
Playing devil's advocate here...

Are full-auto firearms really necessary to combat tyranny though? Are semi-auto rifles significantly less capable than select-fire rifles in combat? From what I hear from friends in the Army, they are trained not to use the full auto or 3-round burst modes on their rifles, as doing so drastically reduces accuracy and is generally a waste of ammo.

That is not exactly accurate (regarding Army training). The army trains it's soldiers to use burst mode for suppressive fire. True, it is less accurate, but it does not have to be for this purpose. Likewise, the 50 cal training teaches one to only use bursts vs full auto... this keeps it more accurate and does not overheat the barrel.

As to what arms are necessary to combat tyranny... the same (or better) arms as ones opponent. No one ever went into battle regretting their superior armaments.

jefflac02 · Mar 6, 2018

Seems like anytime a topic is started by asking permission to discuss a topic. My brain goes into “here we go again mode”. I’m all about being polite, but past history seems to tell me these threads go sideways quickly.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kcbrown · Mar 6, 2018

Jefflac said:
Seems like anytime a topic is started by asking permission to discuss a topic. My brain goes into “here we go again mode”. I’m all about being polite, but past history seems to tell me these threads go sideways quickly.

This one hasn't yet ...

jefflac02 · Mar 6, 2018

2nd amendment definition of "arms"

kcbrown said:
Of course they would. They had just come out of a shooting war against a well-organized and strong military opponent. Do you really think they'd just turn around and say "well, tyranny's never going to happen again so we don't need to bother protecting anything other than the weakest weapons". You'd have to be an absolute moron to believe anything of the sort, and you'd implicitly be claiming that the founders were idiots as well.

Americans should be able to purchase any and all kinds of weapons, because they might need them in order to defeat a tyrannical government.

Or is it your belief that the people shouldn't be able to free themselves from tyranny?

That's really what it comes down to. Do you believe the people should be able to free themselves from tyranny or not? If you do, then you must believe that they have the right to the means to do so, because they won't succeed without it, and a "right" to do something isn't a right at all unless it is accompanied by the right to acquire and possess the means to accomplish it (this is why the right to free speech protects acquisition, ownership, and use of the various implements that one can use to engage in speech).

If you don't, then you clearly don't believe the founders had the right to free themselves from the British government in the first place. It would mean that you don't believe people should be free at all, since one doesn't have the right to be free if one doesn't have the right to become free. And that would make you supportive of the very types of governments that have caused so many of the atrocities seen throughout history -- very nearly all have happened at the hands of a government that had taken liberty from its people.

Excellent post. I attempt to have a discussions with folks, regarding the second amendment. Their failure to understand the second amendment, as our sole differentiating factor to prevent tyranny. And thus our ability to have been one of the few countries to defeat tyranny and not bow down to the crown.

Because folks can’t envision the likelihood of it happening again they blindly accept government control over almost, if not every aspect of their lives, including their safety. Which to me is the beginning of accepting tyranny. And thus, the reason we must have the second amendment.

Without the second we are subject to not only tyranny (domestic) but also to outside forces (foreign).

We are a free society, but many would give up that freedom, to stop just one more shooting, save one more life. IT WONT STOP THEM ALL!! YOU CANT STOP THEM ALL!!

They just don’t understand. Rant over.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jefflac02 · Mar 6, 2018

kcbrown said:
This one hasn't yet ...

True. I was just making an observation. This thread has had some great discussions regarding the second amendment. Albeit without any further input from the OP.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2nd amendment definition of "arms"

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

The M1 Does My Talking

Confederate Jew

Let Freedom Ring

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Super Genius

Confederate Jew

Ultimate Member

Super Genius

Ultimate Member

Member

Active Member

Super Genius

Active Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics