Defensive Carry banner

Doesn't the 2nd Amendment apply to all weapons?

7K views 35 replies 27 participants last post by  Hoganbeg 
#1 ·
I have often wondered why people allow the Government to regulate some weapons without a fight but go ballistic when they attempt to regulate firearms? When the Constitution was written I would hazard to guess that weapons other than firearms were more prevalent than firearms. I am mainly thinking of knives but looking at old drawings and reading about weapons of the era that hatchets and short swords were also called arms at the time. A person carrying a sword was considered well armed.

Why do we just accept the idea that the right to bear arms only means firearms? Why do we not apply the right to bear arms to go after Federal Knife laws? Why is it that a sword can be regulated but we do not accept a rifle being regulated?

Michael
 
#3 ·
Here is a two question test all potential judges for the, SCOTUS or for that matter, ANY judge should have to take, and PASS.


Multiple Choice ;

First Amendment to the Constitution

A) Authorizes Free speech for official State news agencies
B) Protects the Individual’s right to own quill pens and 18th Century manual printing presses
C) Recognizes inalienable Individual right to free speech

Second Amendment to the Constitution

A) Authorizes possession of arms by the Army & National Guard
B) Protects the Individual’s right to own Flintlock muskets & other 18th Century Arms
C) Recognizes inalienable Individual right to keeping and bearing arms


Seems pretty easy to me, how about you guys??
 
#6 ·
My short answer would be the NRA.

To elaborate, that does not mean they don't care about other rights, but they have been the lead in protecting the 2A and have the most money to do so. It is natural for them to focus on guns, but I think your idea about other weapons is starting to gain traction as we keep gaining back ground with respect to guns.

I agree, it should protect 'arms' and some of the knife laws out there are just as stupid as some of the gun laws. I can carry as big of knife as I want in my pocket here in WA as long as it folds, but any fixed blade no matter how long is illegal to "conceal." REDICULOUS!
 
#7 ·
I agree with Michael that it should be applied to weapons other than firearms, but it isn't.

As to the why, I think the notion that the NRA is the reason, is a bit too easy. Each state has its own history of enacting bans on various weapon types, and I am sure there is a very long history of judicial rulings in the various states, many of which
have their own version of 2A.

These laws tend to get enacted in the heat of the moment after some horrific crime which has caught the public's attention.

There are places where you can't legally carry anything (except a handgun with a permit). No knife, no pepper, no club,
not even tools of your trade unless you are actually engaged in the trade--e.g., screwdrivers, hammers.
 
#22 ·
Second Amendment
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.



However the 2nd amendment is absolute when it comes to bearing arms. Long guns and handguns are usually classified as arms. Knifes, club, brass knuckles, pitch forks, etc., are usually classified as weapons. Sadly our absolute right over the years since 1791 has been watered down. This was done by the courts, congress and the states so that now many believe it is not an absolute right.

The language was crystal clear in 1791 and is still crystal clear in 2012 "....shall not be infringed". That does not mean any type restrictive laws. Such as size of ammo clip, charging a fee for that right, what type of gun you can not have, etc.

Any weapon? How about military weapons like rocket launchers, flame throwers, certain explosive devises or for that matter the greatest weapon of all...the atomic bomb. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.
It is obvious that there were no such weapons at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment. I think it is safe to say that the writers did not mean bear arms would allow people to bear a cannon (which they did have then).

Let me ask you this..........................doesn't the 2nd amendment apply to all US citizens? Think this over carefully before answering. Trick question.
When it was written they answer is yes. Now the answer is no. Not a trick answer. :wink:
 
#10 ·
I did miss the OP point a bit. While 2A is not absolute, current limitations and restrictions infringe. Here in MI I sometime worry about the length of a knife I'm carrying (for example a Glock knife). Even when camping or hunting, I've been concerned that some over-zealous anti-2a park ranger or dnr officer might not like that I'm carrying, but since I have the proper documents for the firearms, would find some reason to trouble me over a long knife. I guess for that matter a hatchet, or even the glock e-tool.

From having to have the permit (aka papers) on me for firearms to worrying about transporting and carrying a knife in a legal manner accourding to how someone else might interpret the law at the moment; it is all frustrating.

For certain, 2A has been limited to the point of infringement.
 
#12 ·
There does have to be a line drawn "somewhere." The problem with non-firearms weapons is that there are
too many lines. Unlike state preemption for permits, most places let every town and city do whatever the heck
they want. And as a practical matter, an officer's discretion is often the difference between who is carrying
a weapon and who is carrying a tool of the trade or a piece of sports equipment, or a kitchen utensil.
 
#13 ·
The 2nd Amendment and how and what it applies to is decided by the current court and what case is in front of it.
It can change anytime a justices is changed.
Real world at the time the constitution was enacted I doubt anyone had a problem with your knife , axe handle ect so they just never saw it as a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doghandler
#14 ·
The 2nd Amendment and how and what it applies to is decided by the current court and what case is in front of it.
It can change anytime a justices is changed.
Real world at the time the constitution was enacted I doubt anyone had a problem with your knife , axe handle ect so they just never saw it as a problem.
I doubt that those who wrote the Constitution saw a difference between a musket and a knife. They were both considered arms. Even today when a person is disarmed they are relieved of their clubs, knives, spears, hatchets as well as their firearms.
It can change anytime a justices is changed.
This is true. It makes me wonder, did the founders actually intend that the government who the Constitution was meant to control and restrict could so easily change it? That the entity the document was supposed to control could change the laws to increase their power with a simple majority vote. While at the same time saying that those who wrote it would have to go through a laborious Amendment process to make changes that benefit them?
It does not pass the common sense test if you ask me.

Maybe I should have asked that in another thread.

Michael
 
#15 ·
If the Federal government can ban the ability to possess a switchblade outside the home why shouldn't they be able to ban carrying a 1911 in public?
If we accept that they can do the former how can we reasonably object to the latter?

Michael
 
#16 ·
Around the time our country was founded, there was a difference in nomenclature for weapons. Arms were anything that a man could carry and bear at the ready. This would be things like edged weapons, muskets, pistols, and the like. Ordnance were anything that was crew served or that a man could not carry and bear at the ready. This would be things like cannon and mortar.

Keep that in mind and scale to technology.
 
#17 ·
Why do we just accept the idea that the right to bear arms only means firearms?
Because thats what most of us were taught in school.

Why do we not apply the right to bear arms to go after Federal Knife laws?
Sounds great. Who is going to do it?

Why is it that a sword can be regulated but we do not accept a rifle being regulated?
Its because no one was concerned enough about the legislation that prohibited it to throw a hissy fit and bring it to anyones attention.
 
#18 ·
Let me ask you this..........................doesn't the 2nd amendment apply to all US citizens? Think this over carefully before answering. Trick question. This question is no different from yours. I'll follow this thread.
 
#20 ·
The father of the Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist Paper, #45 says states' powers are "numerous and infinite," but federal powers are "few and defined." Is this in the ball park?
 
#21 ·
I think he's referring to the exceptions of criminals, and non-citizens, from the time period.

When the US was formed, only men were citizens. Predominantly (almost exclusively then) white men at that. It was a slow process expanding the definition of citizen to include women and non-white/black citizens.
 
#25 ·
Seems I have been under the wrong impression regarding the Federal. I had always been told that it was Federal by the LEO's I had discussed this with going back to the late 60's.
The Switchblade Knife Act, (Pub.L. 85-623, 72 Stat. 562, enacted on August 12, 1958, and codified in 15 U.S.C. §§ 1241–1245), prohibits the manufacture, importation, distribution, transportation, and sale of switchblade knives in commercial transactions substantially affecting interstate commerce[55] between any state, territory, possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia, and any place outside that state, territory, U.S. possession, or the District of Columbia. The Act also prohibits possession of such knives on federal or Indian lands or on lands subject to federal jurisdiction. It does not prohibit the ownership or carrying of automatic knives or switchblades inside a state while not on federal property, nor does it prohibit the acquisition or disposition of such knives in an intrastate transaction or an interstate transaction that is noncommercial and/or does not substantially affect interstate comerce (as defined by recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court).
Seem the ban does not apply to the States. However it does apply to District of Columbia and all Federal or Indian lands. So we still have knives banned on Federal lands where firearms are permitted?

Michael
 
#26 ·
To digress to the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment, the founders felt that a well-armed citizenry was vital to prevent tyrannical tendencies by the federal government.

While knives, pitchforks, etc . could be used in some fashion as “arms” on the battlefield it was felt that guns were such an egalitarian and equalizing force that possession by the people needed to be guaranteed to protect liberties in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tzadik
#28 ·
The main purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow the peoples' militia to have the weapons necessary to deter our government from becoming tyrannical as it was before the revolutionary war that had just been won by those that wrote the document.

In order for this to work as intended the militia must have equal or better weapons than the government has.

In our age that means tanks, rockets, missiles, and everything else.

Of course this requires taking the 2nd amendment literally as was intended when it was written. Many these days don't realize the value of the liberties we are quickly losing and the cost that it took to obtain them. We won't appreciate the freedoms we had until they are all gone and it is too late.

Makes me want to cry...

Bobo
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoganbeg and Badey
#30 ·
So switchblade knives are illegal on federal lands as are sawed off shotguns and other firearms not covered by 2A currently. This could be a very temporary situation.

If you read the entire majority opinion of Heller they question the constitutionality of the gun control act of 1934. They say they don't have to address that question at this time but they expect they will.
Dominoes ready to fall...
 
#31 ·
Think about this. When the Bill of Rights was written, the second ammendment recognized the importance of the citizen's right to keep and bear arms as well as the need for a well regulated militia. They were carrying the same "arms" as the then military would have used. Why can't we do the same now? Just a little food for thought!
 
  • Like
Reactions: surefire7
#34 ·
"Dominoes ready to fall..."

One sincerely hopes so! Now if only we could give them a push.
 
#36 ·
Consider: I think this argument pivots on whether the 2nd amendment is a right of the people as a whole, the individual, or both. I believe the last interpretation is the correct one. At the time of the founding men were expected to be able to show up with their individual arms. Obviously one cannot bear a cannon, yet if one purpose of the 2A is to stand as guard against a tyrannical government, the right of the people en-mass to employ the arm called a cannon must be acknowledged. Like-wise, the arms of an individual soldier would logically have to include any individually employed weapons. I guess by extension I would have to say that crew-served weapons (aircraft & their armament, tanks, etc.,) would fall under the purview of the militia.

On a further note, the term arm is, by definition, inclusive. To say firearms specifies a sub-type of arms. Other types of personal and group arms existed in 1776 so the founding fathers were aware of them. If they had meant only firearms they would have been more specific about which class of arms they meant. They did not differentiate therefore we must assume they meant all arms.

As for NBC arms, I think that's where I would draw the line. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to limit their effects to the enemy combatants.

Bottom line is our rights have been seriously infringed.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top