4 ms·

Two things to augment your explanation of the first and second amendments. Firstly, the first amendment guarantees "the incorporation freedom of speech", and no

Two things to augment your explanation of the first and second amendments. Firstly, the first amendment guarantees "the incorporation freedom of speech", and not "the freedom of any speach" which sounds arbitrary but isn't when you remember so much of the constitution is meant to carry forward existing British and colonial traditions. If we were free to say it in 1789 we're free to say it now. We aren't free to say anything we please, but the limits are very very wide. Secondly, incorporation doctrine has made a giant mess of everything, especially the second amendment. It does need to be read in conjunction with the Militia clause in article 1 and you need to keep in mind the intent was to keep a small army but a powerful militia. Militia refers to every man capable of fighting. In federalist fashion, congress got to set standards but the states executed them. The second amendment was a minimum training standard that said congress couldn't abuse its power by enacting gun control because if they did, we'd have no militia to defend the nation which would be a perverse outcome. But basically the federal government has the (curiously unused) power to regulate the training of the militia. Part of that could plausibly include restrictions on how the militia is trained on certain weapons. Hence, to bear a WMD congress could require you to serve one weekend a month, two weeks a year if you get my drift.

lisper 6y ago
> Hence, to bear a WMD congress could require you to serve one weekend a month, two weeks a year if you get my drift. Yes. But Congress has levied no such requirement. And absent any such requirement I should be able to successfully argue that if my right to bear arms extends to a Glock then there can be no Constitutional basis for arguing that it should not extend to a nuke. My point is no one even attempts to make that argument because everyone knows it would get shot down on some obscure legal pretext because when push comes to shove no one is really a textualist or an originalist. It's all subtlety and nuance and interpretation and, ultimately, politics, even among people who insist that it is not.
- arcbyte 6y ago
  There is 18 U.S. Code § 831,832, but it doesn't outright forbid owning a nuclear weapon. There is also the interesting issue of nonproliferation treaties to consider. Could the US signing an arms agreement impact your second amendment rights - because those treaties would be enforceable against you? If you followed in the footsteps of David Hahn and ilk and avoid the environmental problems that got him in trouble, and built it yourself, you might be able to create and possess one legally. Theres probably some regulations in the CFR to look through too. Some law or regulation has to exist to regulate existing nuclear weapon production in the US.

lisper 6y ago

> Hence, to bear a WMD congress could require you to serve one weekend a month, two weeks a year if you get my drift. Yes. But Congress has levied no such requirement. And absent any such requirement I should be able to successfully argue that if my right to bear arms extends to a Glock then there can be no Constitutional basis for arguing that it should not extend to a nuke. My point is no one even attempts to make that argument because everyone knows it would get shot down on some obscure legal pretext because when push comes to shove no one is really a textualist or an originalist. It's all subtlety and nuance and interpretation and, ultimately, politics, even among people who insist that it is not.

arcbyte 6y ago
There is 18 U.S. Code § 831,832, but it doesn't outright forbid owning a nuclear weapon. There is also the interesting issue of nonproliferation treaties to consider. Could the US signing an arms agreement impact your second amendment rights - because those treaties would be enforceable against you? If you followed in the footsteps of David Hahn and ilk and avoid the environmental problems that got him in trouble, and built it yourself, you might be able to create and possess one legally. Theres probably some regulations in the CFR to look through too. Some law or regulation has to exist to regulate existing nuclear weapon production in the US.