5 ms·

No, it's correct: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html >The Second Amendment is naturally divided

No, it's correct: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed).

inlined 4y ago
Modern judicial activism which clearly goes to the heart of the matter: the conservative bloc in the SCOTUS doesn’t care about even the text of the constitution
- gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
  Whose right is gun ownership? It's the people. The Constitution explicitly says that the Government will not have the right to infringe on that right. The inference is that they can infringe on all the other non-enumerated rights. Edit: to pull context from another comment here. "The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes." This issue is that the States became lazy once the Feds got their standing military. All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year.
  - nullfield 4y ago
    Militia: still is, mostly - people live a little longer now. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
BeefWellington 4y ago
I've had this question for a while but why can I not own a functional tank or MLRS system and just drive them around wherever I want? Why are explosives regulated? Nothing in the constitution seems to suggest "Arms" must mean "guns and only guns", so where else is the line drawn?
- exhilaration 4y ago
  In many states you totally can own a functional tank, missile system, or explosives -- you just need the right $200 stamp from the ATF and maybe a background check. (Each tank shell or missile would require an additional ATF stamp, this is where things become different from owning a normal gun and ammunition.) Driving them around - outside of your property - would require them to be properly licensed and road-legal, that's something your local motor vehicle agency would have to decide. Here's the first Google result for your entertainment: You Can Purchase a Fully Functional Army Tank Online Because This Is America https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/09/armslist-sells-fully-functional-military-weaponry https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/09/armslist-sells-f...
  - BeefWellington 4y ago
    > In many states you totally can own a functional tank, missile system, or explosives -- you just need the right $200 stamp from the ATF and maybe a background check. I'm aware and my point was explicitly about being able to drive them around wherever I like, under the guise of it being the rough equivalent of concealed carry for an MLRS. You can't; there's restrictions. At the minimum, it's likely that people would argue they're heavy and would harm infrastructure (or outright destroy it in the case of some tanks). Separately, explosives are also tightly controlled, but are still a key part of armaments.
    - bmelton 4y ago
      I think if you looked deeper, you'd find that the restrictions for where you could and could not drive tanks are more restrictions on the _roads_ than the _tanks_ The government owns the roads, ergo can sidestep a lot of the what might otherwise be mandated under strict scrutiny for their usage with rational basis tests. E.g., "the roads are rated for <x> class of vehicles, and a tank is <y> class."

inlined 4y ago

Modern judicial activism which clearly goes to the heart of the matter: the conservative bloc in the SCOTUS doesn’t care about even the text of the constitution

gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
Whose right is gun ownership? It's the people. The Constitution explicitly says that the Government will not have the right to infringe on that right. The inference is that they can infringe on all the other non-enumerated rights. Edit: to pull context from another comment here. "The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes." This issue is that the States became lazy once the Feds got their standing military. All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year.
- nullfield 4y ago
  Militia: still is, mostly - people live a little longer now. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

BeefWellington 4y ago

I've had this question for a while but why can I not own a functional tank or MLRS system and just drive them around wherever I want? Why are explosives regulated? Nothing in the constitution seems to suggest "Arms" must mean "guns and only guns", so where else is the line drawn?

exhilaration 4y ago
In many states you totally can own a functional tank, missile system, or explosives -- you just need the right $200 stamp from the ATF and maybe a background check. (Each tank shell or missile would require an additional ATF stamp, this is where things become different from owning a normal gun and ammunition.) Driving them around - outside of your property - would require them to be properly licensed and road-legal, that's something your local motor vehicle agency would have to decide. Here's the first Google result for your entertainment: You Can Purchase a Fully Functional Army Tank Online Because This Is America https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/09/armslist-sells-fully-functional-military-weaponry https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/09/armslist-sells-f...
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  > In many states you totally can own a functional tank, missile system, or explosives -- you just need the right $200 stamp from the ATF and maybe a background check. I'm aware and my point was explicitly about being able to drive them around wherever I like, under the guise of it being the rough equivalent of concealed carry for an MLRS. You can't; there's restrictions. At the minimum, it's likely that people would argue they're heavy and would harm infrastructure (or outright destroy it in the case of some tanks). Separately, explosives are also tightly controlled, but are still a key part of armaments.
  - bmelton 4y ago
    I think if you looked deeper, you'd find that the restrictions for where you could and could not drive tanks are more restrictions on the _roads_ than the _tanks_ The government owns the roads, ergo can sidestep a lot of the what might otherwise be mandated under strict scrutiny for their usage with rational basis tests. E.g., "the roads are rated for <x> class of vehicles, and a tank is <y> class."