3 ms·

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 regulat

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."
  - exhilaration 4y ago
    I'm aware and my point was explicitly about being able to drive them around wherever I like... But you're wrong, while I couldn't drive my tank around, I could certainly load it onto a tractor trailor and show it off around town. I would argue that's functionally the same thing.
  - belorn 4y ago
    In theory states could write a new law that forbid carrying any explosive on public road as a matter of road safety. Ammunition would be non-road-legal, making concealed and non-concealed carry impossible on public roads.
SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
You absolutely can own a tank. With functioning cannon. Because of the NFA, you have to register the cannon as a destructive device, although at the 1776 ratification, cannons were explicitly legal. So there is your tank and cannon. A multi rocket system, is not a gun. It's ordnance. So this argument is weak and I don't need to extend into that except for.... ALSO LEGAL. Again, you are going to need to follow the rules of the NFA, and ATF's explosives requirements. The larger issue will be to get Lockhead Martin to sell you one! Which they will not. But you come up with the cash for 1000 of them, and I bet they do. Explosives are regulated because they have no defensive purpose. I mean, they do, but it's tough to use them defensively and accurately. If you cite Heller vs DC, they are dangerous AND unusual, key point to use "AND" there. Arms do actually mean arms. Arms meant cannons too. But bombs were never really arms. The line in this case is drawn rather inconsistently by the federal government agencies, and more fairly but even increasingly restrictive by congress. Any other questions?
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  I'm aware you can own a tank, the issue was with the restrictions on its use. It was probably a poor analogy, but the concept is: Legally, how is: > You can purchase a tank but not operate it anywhere off your own property. functionally different than: > You can purchase a handgun but may not carry it concealed on your person off your own property. Emphasis on Legally. In both cases these are allowed weapons for people to own, which, while not exact parallels (Tanks can cause infrastructure damage and such) at their core seem very similar from a legal perspective, especially because of the NFA requirement for tanks. That latter is important to consider because the NFA largely deals with guns of varying sorts in its rules. Also context: I'm an ignorant Canuck who occasionally lives stateside.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    >at their core seem very similar from a legal perspective especially because of the NFA requirement for tanks. There is no NFA requirement for the tank itself. Only for the cannon, and the ammunition if it has an explosive payload. The tank is just a vehicle. If you can make it street legal, you are free to drive it anywhere you like. The more interesting thing you bring up inadvertently is "on your own property". If that's the case, I should be able to own all the machine guns I like without NFA stamps on my own property right? The NFA is an unconstitutional law that sought to put a tax on rights. Then extra double unconstitutional when in 1986 they said "Oh, we longer accept the tax for certain still legal things". We specifically deny behavior that elsewhere, like voting. All handguns were supposed to be included, and all rifles with barrels shorter than 18". 18" stuck for shotguns, but rifles were moved to 16" for silly reason I can't recall exactly. Pistols got dropped because even in 1934 the public reaction wasn't going to fly. It doesn't matter though. The point of all of this is 2A is an individual right, enumerated, and verified with previous and recent court decisions. Abortion is not, so people using the BUT STATES RIGHTS comments about the NYRPA decision vs Roe overturn are being completely ignorant of the realities here. It's very silly to compare them.
maxwell 4y ago
Driving motored vehicles on public roads is a privilege retained by the states under the Tenth Amendment. You can drive a tank on private property, if you can legally acquire one (Commerce Clause). Unclear on explosives. As far as "arms," the line is drawn at being able to be operated by a single person. So it would appear unconstitutional to prohibit keeping and bearing cannons and tactical nukes, though Congress can prohibit sale and interstate transfer.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  The US is party to various treaties governing fissile material. Whether those treaties can be construed to override amendments as opposed to the original Constitution is a good question.
codefreeordie 4y ago
rufus_foreman 4y ago
The militia (as opposed to the army) would use personal weapons that they owned for defense of the home, and the Supreme Court has held that those are the arms protected by the 2nd Amendment. From Heller, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf page 59, "As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,”, would fail constitutional muster." If people had commonly used cannons to protect their homes, maybe tanks would be protected under the 2nd Amendment by their logic.

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."
- exhilaration 4y ago
  I'm aware and my point was explicitly about being able to drive them around wherever I like... But you're wrong, while I couldn't drive my tank around, I could certainly load it onto a tractor trailor and show it off around town. I would argue that's functionally the same thing.
- belorn 4y ago
  In theory states could write a new law that forbid carrying any explosive on public road as a matter of road safety. Ammunition would be non-road-legal, making concealed and non-concealed carry impossible on public roads.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

You absolutely can own a tank. With functioning cannon. Because of the NFA, you have to register the cannon as a destructive device, although at the 1776 ratification, cannons were explicitly legal. So there is your tank and cannon. A multi rocket system, is not a gun. It's ordnance. So this argument is weak and I don't need to extend into that except for.... ALSO LEGAL. Again, you are going to need to follow the rules of the NFA, and ATF's explosives requirements. The larger issue will be to get Lockhead Martin to sell you one! Which they will not. But you come up with the cash for 1000 of them, and I bet they do. Explosives are regulated because they have no defensive purpose. I mean, they do, but it's tough to use them defensively and accurately. If you cite Heller vs DC, they are dangerous AND unusual, key point to use "AND" there. Arms do actually mean arms. Arms meant cannons too. But bombs were never really arms. The line in this case is drawn rather inconsistently by the federal government agencies, and more fairly but even increasingly restrictive by congress. Any other questions?

BeefWellington 4y ago
I'm aware you can own a tank, the issue was with the restrictions on its use. It was probably a poor analogy, but the concept is: Legally, how is: > You can purchase a tank but not operate it anywhere off your own property. functionally different than: > You can purchase a handgun but may not carry it concealed on your person off your own property. Emphasis on Legally. In both cases these are allowed weapons for people to own, which, while not exact parallels (Tanks can cause infrastructure damage and such) at their core seem very similar from a legal perspective, especially because of the NFA requirement for tanks. That latter is important to consider because the NFA largely deals with guns of varying sorts in its rules. Also context: I'm an ignorant Canuck who occasionally lives stateside.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  >at their core seem very similar from a legal perspective especially because of the NFA requirement for tanks. There is no NFA requirement for the tank itself. Only for the cannon, and the ammunition if it has an explosive payload. The tank is just a vehicle. If you can make it street legal, you are free to drive it anywhere you like. The more interesting thing you bring up inadvertently is "on your own property". If that's the case, I should be able to own all the machine guns I like without NFA stamps on my own property right? The NFA is an unconstitutional law that sought to put a tax on rights. Then extra double unconstitutional when in 1986 they said "Oh, we longer accept the tax for certain still legal things". We specifically deny behavior that elsewhere, like voting. All handguns were supposed to be included, and all rifles with barrels shorter than 18". 18" stuck for shotguns, but rifles were moved to 16" for silly reason I can't recall exactly. Pistols got dropped because even in 1934 the public reaction wasn't going to fly. It doesn't matter though. The point of all of this is 2A is an individual right, enumerated, and verified with previous and recent court decisions. Abortion is not, so people using the BUT STATES RIGHTS comments about the NYRPA decision vs Roe overturn are being completely ignorant of the realities here. It's very silly to compare them.

maxwell 4y ago

Driving motored vehicles on public roads is a privilege retained by the states under the Tenth Amendment. You can drive a tank on private property, if you can legally acquire one (Commerce Clause). Unclear on explosives. As far as "arms," the line is drawn at being able to be operated by a single person. So it would appear unconstitutional to prohibit keeping and bearing cannons and tactical nukes, though Congress can prohibit sale and interstate transfer.

selimthegrim 4y ago
The US is party to various treaties governing fissile material. Whether those treaties can be construed to override amendments as opposed to the original Constitution is a good question.

codefreeordie 4y ago

rufus_foreman 4y ago

The militia (as opposed to the army) would use personal weapons that they owned for defense of the home, and the Supreme Court has held that those are the arms protected by the 2nd Amendment. From Heller, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf page 59, "As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,”, would fail constitutional muster." If people had commonly used cannons to protect their homes, maybe tanks would be protected under the 2nd Amendment by their logic.