Are chemical and bio weapons covered under 2nd ammendment?

[Shagbark Hickory]

How about lasers?

[KansasVoter]

1. The NRA is working on those! Stay tuned!

[Hangingon]

28. Did you ever take the concealed carry class?

hOW was it?

[KansasVoter]

37. Delayed until spring. It was full and I didn't want to take a paying customer away from him.

[Hoopla Phil]

54. Do you have a date?

[timo]

31. your street cred

got shot to hell over the conceal carry class, "putting it off till spring" = FAIL!!

[KansasVoter]

38. LOL....how is that a fail? And why do you give a shit?

[timo]

46. because

you talked a buncha shit, couldnt back it up=FAIL, and I dont give a shit I just find you amusing like watching a banty rooster who gets his ass kicked all the time but still thinks he weighs 25 pounds...

[KansasVoter]

47. LOL......so if I took the class it would make me tough like you? My ass kicked..

You are the PERFECT example of the tough guy with a gun mentality.
And your type is just who I expect to meet when I take the class.
A guy with a gun who needs it to feel important.

[timo]

49. fail again

where did I say I was tough? where did I mention that?? keep on keeping on lil rooster, lemme know when you get ready to take that class.

[Hoopla Phil]

55. No, it would just show that you actually did what you said you were going to do.

Nothing more. Of course that means something to some people, others - not so much.

[Tesha]

2. If one were being honest, the full spectrum of NBC weapons ought to be included.

But the pro-gun folks aren't interested in those so we have
many laws restricting your right to keep and bear those armaments.
Heck, you can't even own a working RPG, and *THAT* definitely
falls directly within the spirit of the Holy Second Amendment.

Tesha

[benEzra]

12. Nope, unless you believe the 1st Amendment is similarly invalidated

by restrictions on child porn and snuff films.

All of the Bill of Rights have boundaries. Those boundaries are set by a process known as "strict scrutiny." Restrictions on crew-served weapons and heavy ordnance pass that scrutiny; inordinate restrictions on non-automatic NFA Title 1 civilian small arms that are "in common use for lawful purposes" (D.C. v. Heller) do not.

[Katya Mullethov]

13. If I need a couple of belt feds to keep checkin' fences and runnin' cattle

I shouldn't have to pay the exhorbitant prices those will demand , it just isnt faaaaaay-eeeerrrr . I should be able to pay the same super cut rate price as the DTO's do on their newly made imports . The NFA is only one small example of how one destabilizes small businesses . Small businesses ...that are driving... our national ...economic recovery .

[Recursion]

3. Whether they are or not, the US's treaty obligations supersede that

At least as a legal question, it doesn't matter whether or not nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are covered under the second amendment because the various treaties about them to which the US is party are also the supreme law of the land and would stand as amendments to the 2nd amendment even if you construed it to include those weapons.

As a practical question, the general consensus has been that the 2nd amendment covers whatever weapons are commonly used by a single infantry soldier (rifles, pistols, shotguns).

[bossy22]

24. not necessarily true

IIRC i thought the SC ruled that international treaties are equal to congressional passed and signed legislation- making it still inferior to the constitution?

[Hoyt]

4. Muzzle loaders are what Constitution refers, IMO. But not sexy/destructive enough for pro-toters.

[spin]

7. Then why are you exercising your First Amendment rights on a computer? (n/t)

[benEzra]

10. Get off the Internet and start posting your opinions on a hand-cranked press, then.

The technology and capabilities of NFA Title 1 civilian small arms are far closer to the technology of the Founders' day than is desktop publishing, digital photography, telecommunications, and the Internet.

The Constitution protects "arms" that can be "kept and borne" by an individual, i.e. small arms. Not crew-served weapons, and not ordnance. It does not limit that protection to arms loading from the muzzle instead of the breech, nor does it limit its scope to flintlock ignition and black powder, any more than the 1stA limits its protection to face-to-face speech and hand-cranked presses.

[Hoyt]

17. The Constitution also says "A well regulated militia. . . . ." Are you in one of those?

To make things simple, when one of the guns-in-every-waistband crowed post that "militia" meant something different 200 years ago, then I'll just have to post that "arms" did too. Besides, the Constitution was supposedly written by the founders about freedom, liberty, etc. Then the founders went home and raped/beat their slaves.

No one envisioned supposedly law-abiding citizens walking around with killing machines strapped to their legs or stuffed down their pants. And most that do it nowadays, have a serious problem.

Keep guns in your house, but not on in public where children and innocent citizens play. And please don't tell me how your carrying protects us. What an absolute crock.

[Pancho Sanza]

19. Okay, if you could wave a magic wand and make your wishes real,

what would we expect to see in this area?

[X_Digger]

20. "No one envisioned .. citizens walking around with killing machines strapped " -- really?

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.

[benEzra]

25. Actually, according to Federal law, I am (10 USC 311). So, probably, are you.

Not that it's in the least bit relevant, because the arming of the militia is just a reason given for why the right of the people to keep and bear arms was considered important.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there recognized a "right of the militia to keep and bear arms." There is only a right of the "people," the same people as are mentioned in the other Amendments (i.e., all of us). The right of militia members to be armed grew out of their status as part of the people (the group to whom the right is ascribed), not the reverse.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. Forget it, you're just interfering with the cognitive dissonance n/t

[eqfan592]

39. Language fail on your part.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

I found this in about 2 seconds using google.

[Hoyt]

43. Article states we are talking in context of 1700s -- bet you guys won't find muzzle loaders sexy.

So you'll leave them at home. Good deal.

Also, you did read up on the site I hope. On the home page, the owner write: "The Library has been Certified 'FAMILY FRIENDLY' " among other phrases that make the site suspect.

[RSillsbee]

21. I disagree

The Constitution protects "arms" that can be "kept and borne" by an individual, i.e. small arms. Not crew-served weapons, and not ordnance.

Cannons were in use at the time of the revolution they are certainly crew served and they were privately owned.

This discussion came up on the darkside long before Dereck stole it. one of the best answers I ever heard was from a poster who's name I can not remember ( Maybe Jeff White?) He said the intent of the second was that the citizenry be at least as well armed as the government. He felt that meant that anything normally issued to an infantry soldier should be available for private purchase. Like you he felt that this didn't cover crew served weapons but he thought those should be held in trust by the community as a whole.

As one of Derek's minions you may be able to find the thread it would make for interesting reading

[benEzra]

27. One cannot "keep and bear" a cannon. One can keep it, but not bear it.

The Second Amendment refers, literally, to the right to "keep and bear arms". That presupposes, in the context of the 2ndA, that "arms" can be borne--"carried". That would not include crew-served heavy weapons, nor would it include heavy ordnance.

Yes, privately owned cannons existed in 1789 (as did privately owned warships), just as privately owned howitzers exist today. That does not mean that they automatically fall within the scope of the 2ndA, and the literal text of the 2ndA is not consistent with them.

2ndA scholarship and jurisprudence has long held that the 2ndA protects small arms and other implements owned and carried by individuals. If one wishes to expand the 2ndA to include ordnance and heavy weapons that cannot be borne, one could certainly launch a test case against the NFA regulations on Destructive Devices. But the Court has already upheld that restriction, and honestly I don't see any justification for the position in the 2ndA itself.

[RSillsbee]

29. If privately owned cannons existed in 1789

and were not outlawed after the constituion was ratified then the second amendment as written did apply to them.

Apparently civilians do have access to artillery today http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCXYKp3Dn5g

[benEzra]

35. In my opinion, that is a non sequitur. The 2ndA is a positive statement of rights,

The fact that Congress didn't bother passing legislation restricting cannons in 1789 (or to this day, since muzzleloading cannons are AFAIK still legal) does not mean they are arms that can be "kept and borne", or that keeping howitzer in your yard and 155mm shells in your basement cannot be restricted. It simply means that Congress did not consider private ownership of cannons to be a problem, then or now. But the text of the 2ndA itself, as well as the discussions surrounding its passage, do seem to refer specifically to small arms.

If some future Court found howitzers in the "penumbra and emanations" from the 2ndA, that would be a different matter (and I'm not saying that such a finding would torture the text, and I'm glad that most of us read the 4thA broadly), but the Court has long read the 2ndA rather literally.

As far as the video clip, there are breechloading 90mm field guns, 105mm howitzers, and WW2 anti-tank cannons in private hands, and it is not a problem. But I do not believe you can find much of a Constitutional argument against the Title 2 restrictions on those items, whereas such restrictions would NOT pass Constitutional muster were they applied to common small arms.

Of course, there is a possible gray area in that howitzers could be simultaneously protected and their manner of possession/storage regulated under a strict-scrutiny test that similar restrictions on small arms would not pass, but I see that as more of a pie-in-the-sky debate, personally.

[RSillsbee]

36. My argument is academic

You said that you thought the 2nd amendment didn't apply to crew served weapons. I believe it did. That part is academic and has no bearing on what the law says now.

I'm not trrying to start a pissing contest

[benEzra]

41. Me either, and I hope I didn't come across as combative.

My apologies if I did.

[RSillsbee]

42. You didn't

And I don't blame you for the THR unpleasentness

[badtoworse]

59. A few years back, I saw a video of some guys skeet shooting with a tank

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On6M8IC1K-Q

OK, it's a beer commercial, but I thought we could use some levity around here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. "Quill pens are what Constitution refers, IMO." If *you* want to follow that metric, fine.

Demanding others follow it? Nuh-uh. No can haz...

[Hoyt]

18. Public toting advocates -- please see post #17 above to save time.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. How about reading the actual Federal law regarding the militia, instead?

I'm sure this just slipped your mind, amirite?

As a good Democrat (and democrat), I'm certain you'll help eliminate the racist and sexist language contained herein....

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[benEzra]

33. See #23 to rebut your #17. :-) Hmmm, this reminds me of that joke...

about the prisoners who numbered their jokes to save time...

[Hoyt]

44. Trying to rationalize carrying guns in public (with 30 shot magazines) is a joke.

[benEzra]

45. Are you referring to a different post?

You asked a question relating to the wording of the Second Amendment, and I replied mentioning Title 10, section 311 of the U.S. Code (which defines the organized and unorganized militia) and pointing out that the 2ndA ascribes the right to the people, not the militia?

In my other post, I referred to keeping 30-round guns in the home and using them at the range, and pointed out that capacity when carrying in public is lower due to lack of concealability and holster issues (but concealability is not a factor at home or at the range, which should be pretty obvious).

I'm licensed to carry a concealed handgun. You can't conceal a 9mm pistol with a 30-round magazine in it. Capacity of 9mm handguns with flush-fitting magazines is generally 14 to 21 rounds for full-sized, double-column guns, less for single-stacks designed for maximum concealability at the expense of capacity.

[eqfan592]

34. Hmm, didn't realize the 2nd said...

..."right to keep and bear muzzle loaders." Oh wait, that's because it doesn't. You must have been mistaken. That's OK though, it happens to the best of us. ;)

[Hoopla Phil]

56. No, "arms" is what the 2A refers to. Don't you just love that living breathing document

that the Constitution is? It adapts itself to changing times and evolving technology. It also has a mechanism built right in to change it - if needed.

[benEzra]

5. No, that question has been settled by consensus for many decades

and that consensus was upheld by D.C. v. Heller.

The weapons that can be owned without special Federal authorization are those "in common use for lawful purposes", i.e. non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed NFA Title 1 civilian firearms under .51 caliber, plus over-.51 shotguns. Not nukes, not bioweapons, not chemical weapons. Read the opinion. It is no different than the 1stA protecting political and commercial speech but not child porn (Google the judicial concept of "strict scrutiny" if you don't understand how a right can simultaneously exist and have boundaries).

That consensus has the support of most gun owners, and the NRA has supported it for 76 years now. It seems to be mostly the gun-control advocates who have a problem with it, mostly because they want to ban the most popular weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes.

[Sancho]

6. yep....

If you think about it, the Constitution was written for swords and flintlocks. Today's semi-auto concealable guns are not what they had in mind; and in the future who knows?

The 2nd Amendment said "well-regulated" and I would like to see much stronger restrictions on weapons of all types.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. "The Constitution was written for quill pens and hand-cranked printing presses"

"Today's computers are not what they had in mind." If you followed your own metric, the government could legally prohibit DU.

Are you sure you want to go there?

[Sancho]

50. yep....

that's why progressive Supreme Court judges use good sense to put principles in a modern context - instead of relying on verbatim garbage that doesn't make sense...

[shadowrider]

22. Umm, "well regulated" didn't mean restrictions n/t

[Sancho]

51. regulated:

controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law

regulation: Regulation is "controlling human or societal behaviour by rules or restrictions." Regulation can take many forms: legal restrictions promulgated by a government authority, self-regulation by an industry such as through a trade association, social regulation (e.g. norms), co-regulation and market ...

hmmm....dictionaries are your friend

Yes, regulation means LEGAL RESTRICTION

[X_Digger]

53. Then explain these historical quotes..

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

[Xenotime]

26. Thank you.!

[eqfan592]

40. Yet another language (and logic) fail.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

[Sancho]

52. As described on Rachel tonight and indicated in the post...

what was meant has several interpretations and you found one...but if I could take something the size of a cell phone into a ball game and instantly kill them all in the stadium...how would the "militia" principle apply?

At a point in time, general welfare and safety also make sense...these are old arguments, and sooner or later personal weapons need to be RESTRICTED or REGULATED or CONTROLLED. Else, we'll continue to have unnecessary mass murders.

Would you argue that we have slaves and women can't vote? Our Constitution has principles and intent. Some things become obsolete; others arise. In this case, the 2nd Amendment has become something that needs repair - whether by interpretation, amendment, or whatever legal process that happens. It is time to control easy access to powerful weapons by persons that almost everyone agrees should not have them.

Simple.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

57. Go ahead and repeal the 2nd ammendment....

All of those ratifications and changes to personal liberties you describe came about because the political will of Congress and The People exceeded the requirement needed to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.

The constitution is not permenent. There is a defined method to add or delete portions.
Be honest. Quit pushing for backdoor congressional legislation that is unconstitutional.
Think you got the public/political support to do what your asking? REPEAL THE 2nd AMMENDMENT.

That's the only honorable way to go about what you and your ilk want done.

[villager]

8. Chemical and bio weapons make even *more* "cold dead hands" than guns do!

Gosh!

[onehandle]

9. I do Not feel safe outside of my home without my shoulder mounted rocket.

Hands off, Libs!

[Democrats_win]

11. Sometimes you hear of someone getting in trouble for having such weapons.

Like a pipe bomb or explosives. The police will not be gentle as they pry those weapons out of your hands.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

23. Pepper Spray is legal for self defense...lasers are good

for pistols....I recommend CT's for whatever pistol you do have for SD.

[littlewolf]

48. I like pepper foam ..... :D

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

58. I like peppers :)