The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[Didnotcomply89]

An acquaintance of mine recently told me:

The second amendment does not specify what type of arms you are allowed to bear. You simply cannot carry or own any firearm you want, anywhere.

Thoughts? Counter arguments? I am sure this topic has been beaten like a dead horse, but I want to hear what others have to say about the 2nd amendment, what it says, what it was written for and what regulation of it means when it says 'shall not be infringed'.

[fuzzywuzzy]

An "acquaintance" of mine...

I see you balked at calling him a friend.
For obvious reasons.

[tl_3237]

An acquaintance of mine recently told me:



Thoughts? Counter arguments? I am sure this topic has been beaten like a dead horse, but I want to hear what others have to say about the 2nd amendment, what it says, what it was written for and what regulation of it means when it says 'shall not be infringed'.

A good start is to read the SCOTUS 2008 decision: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

[JDA58]

yeah-quick-question.jpg

[Didnotcomply89]

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivo*lous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not in*terpret constitutional rights
that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Interesting quote. Seems contradictory to what Scalia said earlier.

[Gun]

Tell your acquaintance that the 2nd amendment was repealed!

[streaker69]

Ask him if he thinks the 1st Amendment applies to the internet.

[internet troll]

The second amendment does not specify what type of arms you are allowed to bear.

A. The Heller decision as posted above.

B. Exactly, think about how laws and statutes work. They tell you what you can't do and what is illegal. If it's not written into a statute, it is by default legal.

Same thing here, if it's not specifying what is legal to carry, then by default, you can carry what you want. Not listing specific firearms helps us, not antis. Especially when paired with that whole "shall not infringe " thing.

[gghbi]

A. The Heller decision as posted above.

B. Exactly, think about how laws and statutes work. They tell you what you can't do and what is illegal. If it's not written into a statute, it is by default legal.

Same thing here, if it's not specifying what is legal to carry, then by default, you can carry what you want. Not listing specific firearms helps us, not antis. Especially when paired with that whole "shall not infringe " thing.

Except in some peoples republic states like New Jersey where the law is written to screw the most people!!

[Brick]

Sure part of the ARMS considered when written was the soldiers accoutrements, for example bayonet, web belts (note even in today's Army one is considered to be "under arms" if wearing his pistol belt) knapsack, cartridge box etc. It also included pole arms such as a Sergeants spontoon and sidearms such as pistols and swords. Crew served weapons such as mortars and cannon and standard weapons and equipment for cavalry also. Don't forget the idea was to man out an equipped and trained military force when needed for community or national defense.

Search around a bit and you'll find the meaning of "regulated" of the day as "well trained" or properly functioning.