What kind of "arms" does the 2nd Amendment refer to?

[gorfle]

The second amendment reads:

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.

I can find no other occurrence of the word "arms" in the Constitution.

In previous debates, one of our members frequently discounts citations of any other contemporary historical documents to support what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution, continually stating that "it's not actually written in the constitution."

So, without using any other documents besides the Constitution to define "arms", what kind of Arms are being described, and why?

[fenriswolf]

1. hmmmm good point

I suppose arms could refer to either weapons, perhaps a "coat of arm" or just "arms"

[Sweet Pea]

3. With that perspective....

I suppose the founding fathers could also have been talking about the right of the populace to stand in front of a rogue out-of-control government with their arms bared to the cold air, wearing only a vest with no sleeves. THAT'LL show 'em!

I mean after all, that was all that was needed to face down Britain, at the time the world's greatest army and navy. Bare arms! Show 'em those biceps! The Guns of America!

Get real. "Arms" means weapons. The second amendment was provided so that the people could never be disarmed by a rogue, out of control government, which is what they saw in Britain in the late 18th century. They didn't want the same thing to happen with their OWN government.

[Historic NY]

2. A stand of arms..............

"A Stand of Arms" refers to a complete set for one soldier, as a musket, bayonet, cartridge box and belt; frequently, the musket and bayonet alone.

[lurky]

4. From Wordnet:

arms
noun
1. weapons considered collectively (syn: weaponry)

Clearly, the founding fathers wanted guys in pickups to have any kind of weapon they wanted, guns, knives, nukes, biologicals, you name it. These damn liberals are trying to keep nukes out of the hands of rednecks!

:sarcasm:

[SteveM]

8. Got my nuke already and my house is a "biological" in itself.

[benEzra]

12. Except that had the Founders meant "ordnance," they would have said so.

The modern definition of "arms" (i.e., to include ordnance and crew-served weapons) is a bit broader than the primary definition in 1791, I suspect.

BTW, note also that the 2nd Amendment refers to arms that can be kept and borne, which would also exclude heavy ordnance and crew-served weapons anyway.

The gun control debate isn't about nukes. It's about non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber that meet the barrel length and overall length requirements of the National Firearms Act.

[Jackeen]

15. Even the suppressor should be questionable.

>non-sound-suppressed small arms

Note that in much more gun-regulated Europe using a suppressor is considered good manners, as it doesn't disturb the neighbours when you go hunting. I know why you exclude it: because the 1934 act isn't really being debated much, but it's always open to ammendment.

[chunkstyle5]

24. No, not crew-served heavy ordinance.

When the Founders said "kept and borne", they meant weapons suitable for an infantry soldier. You want a clue as to what limit that means today? Look at the weapons carried by the current individual U.S. Army infantry soldier:

M4 select-fire carbine
M249 squad automatic weapon (FN Minimi)
M16/M203 select-fire rifle/grenade launcher
M24 sniper weapon system (Remington 700)
M107 long range sniper rifle (Barrett .50 cal)
M9 pistol (Beretta 92)
M11 pistol (SiG P228)
M136 light anti-armor weapon (AT-4) (and others)
MK3A2 concussion offensive hand grenade
M15 white phosphorous grenade (and others)
M61 fragmentation hand grenade (and others)
M1014 semi-automatic shotgun (Benelli Super 90) (and others)
MP5 submachine gun (H&K)

None of these are "crew-served".

Any of them would be suitable to equip a militia capable of resisting tyrannical modern forces of oppression, as muskets, long rifles, then-current grenades, dragoon carbines, and sabers were in 1775-1783.

No law banning any weapon on this list, or any similar weapon, is rightfully constitutional, in the context of the Second Amendment. Notice the presence of high-explosive destructive devices and select-fire or fully-automatic long arms, now denied to the general run of ordinary citizens.

We can talk for hours about the need for citizens to be armed for defense against common criminals, but the Founders wanted us armed for an entirely different, and political, reason.

[johnbraun]

25. Dern tootin'.

nt

[One_Life_To_Give]

26. What restrictions on owning Cannon

were enacted in 1791? or prior to 1800, state or federal?

Would the Mayflower being a civilian ship had she been around, had to disarm herself?

[johnbraun]

27. Well, there aren't any on owning black powder cannon right now.

Howitzers and such you can get after paying the $200 transfer tax for a destructive device.

The only two weapons outright prohibited by federal law from civvie ownership are SAMs and nuclear weapons.

[EricTeri]

28. You sure about the nukes?

After all - the cost alone would prohibit private ownership by all but an extremely small number of individuals.

Not even sure SAM's are illegal. Nothing more than a rocket motor and an explosive.

[johnbraun]

29. Yes, I am sure.

SAMs - illegal:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2332g

§ 2332g. Missile systems designed to destroy aircraft

(a) Unlawful Conduct.—
(1) In general.— Except as provided in paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly produce, construct, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use—
(A) an explosive or incendiary rocket or missile that is guided by any system designed to enable the rocket or missile to—
(i) seek or proceed toward energy radiated or reflected from an aircraft or toward an image locating an aircraft; or
(ii) otherwise direct or guide the rocket or missile to an aircraft;
(B) any device designed or intended to launch or guide a rocket or missile described in subparagraph (A); or
(C) any part or combination of parts designed or redesigned for use in assembling or fabricating a rocket, missile, or device described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
(2) Nonweapon.— Paragraph (1)(A) does not apply to any device that is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon.
(3) Excluded conduct.— This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) conduct by or under the authority of the United States or any department or agency thereof or of a State or any department or agency thereof; or
(B) conduct pursuant to the terms of a contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof or with a State or any department or agency thereof.
(b) Jurisdiction.— Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if—
(1) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce;
(2) the offense occurs outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;
(3) the offense is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;
(4) the offense is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States; or
(5) an offender aids or abets any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection in committing an offense under this section or conspires with any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection to commit an offense under this section.
(c) Criminal Penalties.—
(1) In general.— Any person who violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not less than 25 years or to imprisonment for life.
(2) Other circumstances.— Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), uses, attempts or conspires to use, or possesses and threatens to use, any item or items described in subsection (a), shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or imprisoned for life.
(3) Special circumstances.— If the death of another results from a person’s violation of subsection (a), the person shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and punished by imprisonment for life.
(d) Definition.— As used in this section, the term “aircraft” has the definition set forth in section 40102 (a)(6) of title 49, United States Code.

Nuke - illegal:

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 23 > Division A > SUBCHAPTER VIII > § 2122

§ 2122. Prohibitions governing atomic weapons

(a) It shall be unlawful, except as provided in section 2121 of this title, for any person, inside or outside of the United States, to knowingly participate in the development of, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use, any atomic weapon. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to modify the provisions of section 2051 (a) or 2131 of this title.

[pipoman]

5. The Constitution and BoR are never interpreted using only the Constitution

ever. There are many sources of reference for interpretation not the least of them being the Federalist Papers which should be required reading before anyone tries to discuss the meaning of the Constitution or BoR IMHO.

[jody]

6. RKBA is first and foremost about self-defense and only secondarily about defense of state.

SCOTUS has not addressed the type of arms for defense of self but it did for defense of state. It said in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

If citizens are expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves, that means individual arms kept in a citizen's home, not provided by government and stored in a government armory.

The type of individual arms in common use today by the organized militia are the M-16 rifle and M-9 pistol.

[SteveM]

9. And to think, the antis cite Miller.

[krispos42]

7. I've stated this before in other threads when asked this...

what sort of arms should be legal. While it is true that full-auto weapons and artillery are fully legal, they are tightly controlled, limited in number, and subject to strict law-enforcement scrutiny of the buyer. I'll leave that where it lies and instead define what the general public should be able to get with only an instant background check.

Arms:

A weapon that can be carried several miles and operated by a single person without undo fatigue. The weapon must only be able to fire discriminate shots. Weapons are not allowed to fire fully-automatic, as that is non-discrimintory fire, nor can they fire explosive shells, the burst pattern of which is also non-discrimitory fire.

This means that a machine gun or a mortar are not "arms", but a shotgun, pistol, or rifle is.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 sets the ceiling for rifled guns at .50 caliber, with exceptions for shotguns, and for antiques like the .58-caliber rifled muskets of the Civil War. That line seems to be widely accepted and the country largely content with it.

[ManiacJoe]

10. Simple. It is referring to all weapons.

However, current federal laws place reasonable limits: people are allowed to have any weapon that is discriminate in its down range target (no area-effect weapons). Meaning no exploding rounds, no mortars, no bombs, no rockets/missiles, etc.

The OK-ed weapons (federal): (bolt, pump, semi) rifles, shotguns, handguns, machine-guns, submachine-guns, assault rifles, battle rifles, etc.

Many/most states place further limits, rightly or wrongly.

[CHIMO]

11. I Would Assume

That it means "regulated Militia" have the means necessary to free.

[benEzra]

13. One clue - arms that can be both kept at home, and carried on the person.

That's what "keep and bear arms" means. You can keep them, and you can carry them.

Hence, it would be logical to assume that they were talking about small arms. And they said "arms," which would seem to exclude "ordnance" or crew-served weapons, which would not necessarily be covered by the term as it was used in 1791.

[Boomer 50]

14. Well, lets use US v. Miller as a starting point

"Arms in common military use." has been thrown around quite a bit. In US v. Miller 1939, the USSC established (incorrectly) that the shortbarreled shotgun in possession by Miller was "not in common use by the military" even though in all truthfulness, short barreled shotguns were quite common during WW1 and have been used in every major and most minor conflicts since. So, using the Miller decision as a basis, the arms refered to by the Founding Fathers in the 2nd Amendment would be military arms. Today, that would include such weapons as the M16 series of rifles, machine guns such as the M2 .50 caliber machine gun, various classes of destructive devices, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, suppressors (silencers) and various classes of weapons that do not fall under any other heading (AOW). Knives and other implements would also be covered as they are in common use by not only the United States military but every military in the world.

Further evidence to this end would be the oft-repeated mantra of todays paramilitary police. "We need (insert whatever firearm here) so we won't be outgunned on the streets from criminals." The police are fast moving towards select fire rifles, submachine guns and other guns the anti-gun zealots want banned. If law enforcement feels a dire need to arm themselves with these types of arms, then ALL Americans should take a hard look at the reasons why and consider emulating the police for their own protection and the protection of our communities.

No matter how one feels about the wording of the 2nd Amendment, common sense must apply when we look at times of muster. The men were expected to present themselves armed with their own firearms and outfitted for combat. Today, this would include ballistic vests, helmets, other proper gear to allow the citizen soldier to effectively participate in any armed conflict. Something that isn't really discussed much when relating to the extent of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

One classification that has been debated over and over is crew served weapons such as cannon or tanks. These probably should be included for the effective defense against a comperablely armed enemy. History has shown that many cannon and warships were privately owned and used in defense of the nation on more than one occasion. Does this apply today? I believe so.

[Ready4Change]

16. Don't underestimate the talents of the writers of our founding documents.

They were skilled and efficient users of the language of their day. They were also aware that what they were writing would need to remain valid for a long time in the future.

They had words at that time for muskets and rifles and pistols and cannon, and swords and knives. If they had meant any of those things, at the exclusion of others, they would have said so.

They had seen weapons develop over time. They had used those developments to their advantage. And they knew the future would bring more changes. Had they meant for their words to only apply to the weapons of their era, they would have said so.

For the firearms of their day, there were differences between one used for war and one used for, say, hunting. Had they meant one or the other, they would have said so.

They didn't say so.

'Arms' means weapons of war. It's simple language, meant to resist twisting, meant to refer to the tools of warfare.

Our history is that of a nation born in war. We can dislike that. We can even try to change our current attitudes. But trying to do so by changing or distorting facts of history, just because we find them unpleasant? That's demeaning, and irrational.

You can only change the future when you've honestly faced the past.

[Lex1775]

17. Well said.

[Ready4Change]

21. Thanks.

I wrote it late at night, and woke up fearing that I'd just been babbling. (More than usual, that is. :) )

[L1A1Rocker]

18. Where did you get that 2A quote from?

Commas mean things and for some reason commas seem to have crept into the 2A as years passed. Here is the correct one.

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.

As you can see it does change the meaning a bit.

[gorfle]

19. I got it from here.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/documents/billrights.html

To me, the difference doesn't make much difference.

Even if you try to claim that the right belongs to well regulated militias, and not the regular people (a stance we know to be untrue since the Dick Act of 1903 allowed for the organized and unorganized militia - the National Guard and then everyone else), I have well demonstrated on this board that the well regulated militias of our founding fathers' day no longer exist as they intended for them to exist - a counter to federal military power. Consequently the right must default to the people if you wish to preserve their intent - that the people (whether through a militia or not) must retain the ability to counter federal military power, as a defense against tyranny.

So I can make the case for the right to bear arms whether the comma is there or not. :)

[gorfle]

20. Here is a picture of a copy with the comma

Wikipedia shows a photo of a copy of the Bill of Rights that has the comma.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg

"The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (from the National Archives and Records Administration)."

[ManiacJoe]

22. Unfortunately, our founding fathers were fond of

sprinkling commas into places that did not need them, as was a common practice back then. They were good with words, but not so much with punctuation, at least by modern standards.

Your quote (without the extra comma) is the correct version for modern English.

[wash72]

23. x

To say that the founders meant only single shot muzzle loaders (as some liberals claim) regarding which arms the second amendment protects, also means that the first amendment (freedom of press) only applies to the antique hand operated printing presses of the time. With this logic, television, internet, and high speed printing methods are not covered by the first amendment. Any thoughts on this, please reply using quill pen.