3 ms·
>> The current scope of "arms" does include most conventional weapons but intersects with other boring regulatory considerations If those other conventional we
by sandworm101 3y ago
>> The current scope of "arms" does include most conventional weapons but intersects with other boring regulatory considerations
If those other conventional weapons were covered as "arms" under the 2nd, then those other boring regulations don't matter. The fact that those regs even exist is because so many weapons are specifically not covered as arms. I can own an AR-15. I cannot own a switchblade. I can own a 9mm semiautomatic, but I cannot own a small pen gun. I can own a short shotgun (coachgun) but I cannot own a crossbow in New York. Walk into a Nevada store with a handgun on your hip or an AR over your shoulder and nobody will bat an eye. But carry a sword and you will be arrested. It was only a couple years ago that laws banning "chain sticks" were struck down. SCOTUS has consistently narrowed the 2nd to only protect guns. Most ever other weapon is open for whatever reg the government wants to enact.
- User23 3y agoAmusingly the well regulated militia subordinate clause makes it very clear that the 2nd amendment is explicitly intended to protect “weapons of war.” Sadly, since the Dick act, Congress has defined “well-regulated” as “yeah, whatever.” Nevertheless, since that was Congressional intent it satisfies the well-regulated requirement.