Beer God

Does anyone know what the word �arms� is defined as under US law, as pertaining to the 2nd amendment?

Arken

I don't know, but apparently it doesn't pertain to tactical nuclear weapons according to the judge and my parole officer...

Sakpo

I'll hazard a guess as to the kind of arms the 2nd Amendment refers to, though I could be wrong. The amendment begins with the words "a well regulated Militia," so I'd guess it's refering to the sort of weapons carried by a militia man, such as military calibre handguns and military style rifles, though of course a "militia" is a group of irregular soldiers called apon during emergencies, so I guess it could cover whatever such a group might decide to arm themselves with (possibly weapons like shotguns and hunting rifles would be protected in addition to military style weapons, I suppose).

Stephen Maturin

From a Scaliaesque originalist/strict constructionist viewpoint, the word "arms" obviously means just muzzle-loading, single-shot, smooth-bore, black-powder flintlock muskets and pistols. Any broader interpretation would qualify as "legislating from the bench", one of those hideous liberal evils that our illustrious [p]resident is trying to rid us of through his federal court appointments.

But really, there's no universally accepted definition of what that term means in the context of the Second Amendment. Sakpo's view finds support in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), where the Supreme Court talked about a weapon needing to have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" for the Second Amendment to apply.

simian

Stephen,

You are forcing your viewpoint into what is a very straight-forward document. "keep and bear arms" means exactly that - you get to keep and bear your arms. It says nothing at all about weapons - you will find nothing about bearing weapons in the Constitution or its Amendments.

Simian

Tristan Scott

I would guess that the term refers to whatever "arms" a well regulated militia would require it's members to own.

xorbie

Might not a well-regulated militia need to own tanks? I don't think I can get one of those.... and I believe I have heard of certain guns that civilians cannot own because they are too powerful. Quite frankly, I see no civilian purpose in having a powerful assault rifle, militia or not.

Stephen Maturin

Thanks much for the correction, Simian. That comes as quite a comfort, too. After all, legislation requiring us to surrender our arms would make it mighty tough to do push-ups and stuff.

RufusAtticus

Not to mention wipe our asses.

Tristan Scott

Maybe you missed the meaning of the words "well regulated." That is "well regulated" in reference to the militia. If the "well regulated" militia did indeed need to have some tanks, don't you suppose the regulations regarding the militia would cover the operation and use of the tanks? I think a good regulation would be that the tanks would have to be kept in an armory along with the heavy macine guns and howitzers and bazookas. Kind of like the National Guard.