Q: What kinds of firearms are meant in 2nd amendment?

[DetlefK]

Firearms within the definition back then? -> flintlocks and arquebuses andsoforth only?
Or defined via common commercial availability at any given time?
Or defined as any and all firearms in existence at any given time? -> including firearms intended for warfare?

What about Gauss-rifles, lasers, air-pressure flechette-throwers and microwave-cannons?

I'm asking this because of the Smartgun.
* Would it violate the 2nd amendment to ban/regulate a specific kind of firearm, if this regulation expressly excluded other kinds of firearms?
* Would it violate the 2nd amendment to ban/regulate a kind of firearm that is only used to a negligible degree? (e.g. muzzleloaders)

[rrneck]

1. Any law has to offer some sort of remedy.

If you regulate something and if your law doesn't work for somebody they should have the right to appeal because of extenuating circumstances. Thus, laws can be adjusted in response to cultural changes.

Unfortunately, there is no remedy for dead. So a law regulating the safety features of firearms when used for their intended purpose can offer little remedy if they don't work. If the government mandates user designated firearms, those features cannot under any circumstances get anyone killed. That puts a very heavy burden on the technology, a burden that is probably beyond anything that would merit a government mandate.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Note that it says 'arms' and not 'firearms'. n/t

[gcomeau]

3. Which is even worse...

Tactical nukes are "arms" after all...

[PoliticAverse]

4. I'm pretty sure an amendment to prohibit private ownership of tactical nukes would have passed.

Well back then anyway.

[gcomeau]

6. I'm certain it would have... back then...

Now, the NRA would declare it was the first step on the slippery slope to the government completely disarming all it's citizens in preparation for throwing them in the FEMA concentration camps.

[Eleanors38]

7. "Arms" were and are suitable weapons for militia service...

I.e., handguns and rifles and probably cutting devices. This ruled out constitutional protections for field pieces, artillery, crew-manned weapons, planes, ships, etc.

I think in the near future there will be debate as to what constitutes "arms" suitable for the militia, and stuff like AR-15s, AKs, and super-duper magazines may be deemed the quaint muzzle-loaders. It would be most peculiar to see gun-banners trying to defend semi-auto rifles in the face of plasma projectors, sonic blasters, or Jane Fonda's blow dryer, but it might happen.

[DetlefK]

12. Actually, plasma-guns aren't practical.

I've seen a documentary on Reagan's "Star Wars"-program, where they wanted to attach weapons on satellites. I saw a test where they fired a plasma-gun at steel-plating: Punched right through, no problems. The real problem: The shot had an effective range of about 1 foot, maybe 2, before the air-molecules brought the plasma to a standstill. The shot couldn't penetrate plating more than about 3 feet away.

(You get about the same result when you calculate the mean free path of an atom-sized particle in a gas as dense as air under atmospheric pressure.)

[Eleanors38]

13. I know. Just beeing silly. Now, Fonda's blow-dryer OTOH...

The near future will probably be in wireless tasers, air/pressure guns, and quasi-rocket bullets (hailing back to stuff just before the unitary cartridge was developed), but using electrically fired "bullets" containing their own charges. And of course, home manufacturing if moves toward general prohibition are made.

But the age of firearms using unititized cartridges will be challenged, and what then? I'm o.k. with our current constitutional protected RKBA of all hand-held firearms, sans full-auto. But I would be hard-pressed to argue why the full-auto is not a weapon suitable for militia duty. Full-auto is standard stuff in all military forces around the world. To me, the arguments over techs and actions are small when the near future will shake up what is a suitable SD, militia, hunting and even target weapon.

[sarisataka]

5. A: arms usable by the militia

This is where there first part helps guide the second. As the amendment applies to being prepared for militia service it is presumed them arms to be borne would have application for militia duty.

This is further supported by the ruling in US v. Miller where it was ruled the short barreled shotgun could be prohibited:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

Note the decision said nothing about Miller's participation in a militia just that the weapon in question did not see use in a militia.

From this it can be assumed that standard rifles, pistols and shotguns are the arms in question as they similar to weapons used by the military and would be used by a state militia.

Weapons such as machine guns, explosives, artillery can be further regulated as they are not typical equipment of an average soldier. Those weapons are either crew served, used by specially trained soldiers or assigned for special missions thus would be be common militia weapons; though if a militia was called out such may be assigned by higher authority.

[jimmy the one]

15. right & wrong

sarisataka: As the amendment applies to being prepared for militia service it is presumed them arms to be borne would have application for militia duty.

Correct above, incorrect below:

sarisataka: This is further supported by the ruling in US v. Miller where it was ruled the short barreled shotgun could be prohibited: "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon".
Note the decision said nothing about Miller's participation in a militia just that the weapon in question did not see use in a militia.

That particular opinion (not ruling), was one of several, & you shouldn't cite the above without citing the following from the 1939 supreme court:
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."
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The above opinion & the 1939 ruling was unanimous 8-0, not one thought their wording was improper, or might suggest to future generations that they felt 2ndA was for a militia.

[IggleDoer]

8. Wouldn't surgical instruments used for abortions ...

... be considered "arms."

[SkatmanRoth]

9. Q: What kinds of freedom of the press are meant in the 1st amendment?

Printing presses within the definition back then? -> movable lead type only?
Or defined via common commercial availability at any given time?
Or defined as any and all presses in existence at any given time? Including presses intended to print currency?

What about the press using communications via electricity, telegraph, telephone, radio and microwaves?

I’m asking this because of the Internet.
*Would it violate the 1st amendment to ban/regulate a specific kind of communication, if this regulation expressly excluded other kinds of communications?
*Would it violate the 1st amendment to ban/regulate a kind of communication that is only used to a negligible degree (e.g. Extremely Low Frequency Radio Waves?)

[NYC_SKP]

10. Well, first, the word "firearms" isn't used in the Second Amendment.

However, I would submit that the kinds of arms meant in the 2nd amendment would have included those likely to be used by the army against the population, by other citizens in violent acts against the citizenry, but not large, army scale machines (though I know of no prohibition against these).

And reasonable person would agree that as technology changes so shall the definition of what devices might be included under the classification "arms" and that as weapons grow more precise, sophisticated, or powerful as available to police and the state, so shall similar allowances be made to these things covered by the Second Amendment.

[ileus]

11. Simple personal protection long guns and handguns.

[Adam-Bomb]

14. I've had this discussion before on other boards

Aside from being interesting in a technical sense, it was informative to hear other's
definition of "arms" as outlined in the 2A.

Disclaimer: I am an ex-US Army Infantryman, so I am intimately aware of what is
"crew-served" and "man-portable" and what isn't. Also, we went by the fact, as confirmed by
the SC, that the 2A is defined as a "personal" right to bear arms.

The consensus reached is that mortars, artillery, heavy anti-tank and anti-air weapons
and the .50 caliber MG are not individual weapons. They are "crew-served" weapons, not
personal weapons.

Assault rifles, medium MG's, light anti-tank and air-defense weapons are man-portable and thus
'should' be covered by the 2A. Hand grenades, claymore and AT mines, and light demolition charges
are carried by the individual and thus are covered, also.

Saying the 2A is about muskets and swords is stupid ignorant unless one is willing to ignore advances
in 1A rights. There were no modern printing presses, phones, computers, TV, movies in the 18th Century, were there?

They were very lively discussions, believe me.