Definition of "Arms"

[Ted S.]

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' -Amendment II, adopted 1791

 

³Arms

 

1  a :  a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially :  firearm

 

   b :  a combat branch (as of an army)

 

   c :  an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)

 

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arm)

 

Posting this for anyone iffy on the specifics. People often assume that because the Second Amendment is the focal point of American Gun-Rights-Politics that the Amendment is exclusively referring to firearms.

 

I see a lot of anti-freedom Gun-Control people these days singing something to the tune of "Let people have all the firearms they want! The Second Amendment doesn't pertain to Ammo, so we need to ban Ammo!" This is nonsense. Also, the fact I see so many iterations of this fallacious talking-point propounds a question: What is leading people to such similar yet incorrect assumptions about the 2^nd?

Edited May 30, 2014 by Ted S.

[JayC]

Our poor public education at work...  they don't learn the meaning of words, and they don't learn proper history or civics...  

[bird333]

Well based on that definition, why can't I have a nuclear bomb?

[Oh Shoot]

Well based on that definition, why can't I have a nuclear bomb?

 

I wouldn't presume to know your finances, but the odds are quite high that you couldn't afford one. ;)

 

- OS

[bersaguy]

You beat me to it OS. I was going to ask him if he had a never ending supply of money to build one with.........LOL

[Wheelgunner]

@ the OP - I think a big part of the problem is the degree of constitutional interpretation we put up with.  Judge doesn't like what the Constitution says?  No biggie, he'll just judicially "interpret" it to mean something completely different than how its words plainly read.  

 

This is in spite of the fact that the whole reason we write things down is so that, later on, whatever we wrote won't be different.  Need to remember a phone number one morning to make a call later?  You write it down on a sticky note, so that in the afternoon you'll still have the phone number.  

 

Imagine if every time you wrote down a phone number you needed and then waited an hour, one of the digits had "interpreted" itself from a 9 into a 6.  In another two hours, every 4 "interpreted" into a 7.  By that afternoon, you (the original writer) wouldn't even be able to recognize what you'd written anymore.  Makes no sense, right?  And yet this is exactly what our judiciary has done to our founding documents.    

 

That kind of diseased thinking has made its way from the judicial branch into the general population, so that now citizens think that "changing" the meaning of a word is a valid logical argument.

[enfield]

In reality, the meaning of 'arms' is whatever a lawyer can convince a jury it means.

[RED333]

At the bridge in Lexington the Brits were coming for the cannon, powder and shot.

Very hard for the early REBS to make or get a hold of.

The Ships were on the "list" as well, the personal rifles and pistols were not a big concern.

So "Arms" means what ever you need to protect your self from Big Brother!

Be it jet fighters, tanks, nukes, shoulder fired missiles, full auto, all the way down to a sling shot.

They took full auto away in 1934 and it has been down hill since!

[Ted S.]

Indeed Red. Some statist think free people shouldn't be free and such nonsense. Sent from somewhere in the cosmos using magic...and bacon.

[1gewehr]

The Supreme Court has only ruled ONCE about what is covered by the 2nd amendment as 'arms'.  That was as part of US v Miller in 1939.  The ruling of the court was that 'arms' included ALL weapons currently useful for military service.  Nobody bothered to show the Supreme Court how a short-barreled shotgun was used by military forces, so it was ruled to be subject to a $200 transfer tax.  Lower courts had three times ruled the National Firearms Act unconstitutional, but the Justice Department kept sending it back up to SCOTUS until the final time when the defense didn't show up.

 

Since then, especially after the travesty of the Commerce Clause in Wickard v Filburn, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Feds can regulate firearms pretty much however they want.

 

Lately, they have tried very hard to avoid having to rule on what type of 'arms' are covered by the 2nd.

 

It is still legal for private citizens in this country to own almost any variety of weapon you can imagine.  Theoretically, you could own a nuclear bomb, IF you could find someone to legally transfer the plutonium and you had a safe facility to assemble it.

 

There is a reason why the government is so hot to totally trash any modern aircraft, armored vehicles, and other stuff that is taken out of service.  They do not want you to have it.  If they destroy it, you have to make it yourself.  And it will be very difficult to make a 120mm tank gun, much less the rest of an M1A2 Abrams!  The same is true of ammunition for such weapons.  Current suppliers sign contracts NOT to sell it to civilians, and you can't import the stuff, either.  Before 1968, you could buy anti-tank cannons and ammunition via mail-order.  Amazing how there weren't any problems caused by that.  The only folks I can think of in the US that have been assaulted by tanks and cannon are American citizens being assaulted by the government!

[bird333]

So disregarding finances, I can have a nuclear bomb?  There are no laws prohibiting it?

[A.J. Holst]

So disregarding finances, I can have a nuclear bomb? There are no laws prohibiting it?

You may get a knock on your door inquiring why you're trying to buy second hand yellow cake from Iraq...

[TMF]

[quote name="bird333" post="1154226" timestamp="1401626929"]So disregarding finances, I can have a nuclear bomb? There are no laws prohibiting it?[/quote] Yes. However, laws governing proper storage and use would be appropriate so as not to endanger other folks. For the same reason I can't store 500 gallons of fuel in my neighborhood. It isn't because I don't have a right to property, it's because it would recklessly endanger folks around me. Unlike a firearm, there are inherent risks with explosives and nuclear material which can be catastrophic. Now, if you own enough land and have enough cash to safely store a nuke, then you should be able to own one. It is perfectly legal (federally) to manufacture and store your own explosives. You just better store them properly. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jonnin]

So disregarding finances, I can have a nuclear bomb?  There are no laws prohibiting it?

 

absolutely there ARE laws that prohibit it.  I am pretty sure you need all sorts of legal hoops to have ANYTHING beyond trace amounts of seriously radioactive material.  The stuff is highly regulated.  The equipment to refine it is also highly regulated.   You can't even get medical quality radioactive material, let alone bomb grade.

 

messing with it would get you a visit from all sorts of folks "in the name of national security" etc.  Thanks W for that "patriot" act! 

[TMF]

[quote name="Jonnin" post="1154267" timestamp="1401638776"]absolutely there ARE laws that prohibit it. I am pretty sure you need all sorts of legal hoops to have ANYTHING beyond trace amounts of seriously radioactive material. The stuff is highly regulated. The equipment to refine it is also highly regulated. You can't even get medical quality radioactive material, let alone bomb grade. messing with it would get you a visit from all sorts of folks "in the name of national security" etc. Thanks W for that "patriot" act! [/quote] The interpretation I got from his post was more "should people be allowed to have it", as a way take the "arms" argument to the extreme. In my opinion, folks should be able to have a nuke. Needs to be regulated due to the volatility. Would cost someone tens of billions to have one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The interpretation I got from his post was more "should people be allowed to have it", as a way take the "arms" argument to the extreme. In my opinion, folks should be able to have a nuke. Needs to be regulated due to the volatility. Would cost someone tens of billions to have one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Brings to mind David Hahn, who at age 17 attempted to build a backyard breeder reactor fueled by tiny americum bits scrounged out of zillions of household smoke alarms. And won an eagle scout badge for it! :)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

Edited June 1, 2014 by Lester Weevils

[tnhawk]

Brings to mind David Hahn, who at age 17 attempted to build a backyard breeder reactor fueled by tiny americum bits scrounged out of zillions of household smoke alarms. And won an eagle scout badge for it! :)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

Today it would win him a higher place on a watchlist.

[bird333]

[b]It is perfectly legal (federally) to manufacture and store your own explosives.[/b] You just better store them properly. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

[b]absolutely there ARE laws that prohibit it.[/b]  I am pretty sure you need all sorts of legal hoops to have ANYTHING beyond trace amounts of seriously radioactive material.  The stuff is highly regulated.  The equipment to refine it is also highly regulated.   You can't even get medical quality radioactive material, let alone bomb grade.

 

messing with it would get you a visit from all sorts of folks "in the name of national security" etc.  Thanks W for that "patriot" act! 

 

So is it legal or not?

[Oh Shoot]

So is it legal or not?

 

Not here. 39-17-1302 bans explosive weapons.

 

- OS

[TMF]

[quote name="Oh Shoot" post="1154517" timestamp="1401681596"]Not here. 39-17-1302 bans explosive weapons. - OS[/quote] Is nuke material considered an explosive? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

Is nuke material considered an explosive? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well, question is, "can I have a nuclear bomb".

 

But yeah, obviously nuclear material of any kind is highly regulated -- I'm sure you'd be breaking federal laws just getting the first load of unlicensed yellowcake, let alone the first gram of actual plutonium.  Can't even buy the processing equipment without whatever permits AFAIK, and I strongly suspect that "it's my right under 2A to build a nuclear bomb" ain't gonna score them.  :)

 

- OS

Edited June 2, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Ted S.]

Nukes are a bit of a skewed metric. Such a device that can cause the genecide of cities and even countries with something as trivial as a command show how petty the Governments that have invented/aquired/hold them are; and such a device should not exist. The idea that a ruling elite should have access and means of murder on such a massive scale is beyond words. Sent from somewhere in the cosmos using magic...and bacon.

[1gewehr]

The whole 'nuclear bomb' question is a straw argument.  Yes, you can theoretically own a bomb.  There are no Federal laws prohibiting the ownership of a nuclear bomb per se.  As I mentioned in my previous post, legally acquiring the plutonium is the issue.  And that has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment.

 

The only kind of weapon specifically prohibited from ownership by an American citizen is a machine gun made after 5/19/1986.  Anything else is legal to own under Federal law.  And I challenge anyone to give a logical argument as to why that one prohibition is Constitutional!

[TMF]

[quote name="Oh Shoot" post="1154528" timestamp="1401684870"]Well, question is, "can I have a nuclear [i]bomb[/i]". But yeah, obviously nuclear material of any kind is highly regulated -- I'm sure you'd be breaking federal laws just getting the first load of unlicensed yellowcake, let alone the first gram of actual plutonium. Can't even buy the processing equipment without whatever permits AFAIK, and I strongly suspect that "it's my right under 2A to build a nuclear bomb" ain't gonna score them. :) - OS[/quote] Yeah, the argument itself is ridiculous, but just to bite and explore why it may be okay in theory is worth exploring. I don't see a problem with it, because the regulatory requirements to safely develop and store such an item makes the whole thing moot. If you own land the size of New Jersey with absolutely no souls living on it, then it is safe to store your nuke there. For the same reason I can't store 5,000 lbs of ammonium nitrate in a residential neighborhood. Has nothing to do with legalities of having ammonium nitrate; it is a matter of safely storing volatile material. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jonnin]

Is nuke material considered an explosive? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Without going into a bunch of technical jargon, "yes".

 

If you want to know more, look up "critical mass nuclear".    In a nutshell, if too much material is piled up, it *could* react, and that *could* be a devastating explosion.  Or not.  It depends on what material and circumstances.   But  the "public domain bomb knowledge" will tell you that shoving 2 blocks of uranium etc together "rapidly" into a bigger chunk will... level japan.