PDA

View Full Version : Ammo is part of "To Bear Arms"


Spaniard
04-21-2009, 11:30 AM
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I read how some people (some on this forum and abroad) are saying the Bill of Rights (2A) says nothing about Ammunition it only says to protect Arms/Guns. The effects of the 2nd Ammendment "to keep and bear arms" does include ammunition, by exact word no, by effect yes. What else does "ARMS" mean?

I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one, however did the founding fathers need to explain word for word what "ARMS" meant? They were more intelligent than that.

If that was the case, then why didn't the Founding Fathers say for the First Ammendment what tools or effects could be used with the freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It isn't written in the First Ammendment that the freedom of the press is free to print but the ink has to be regulated. Or that a website can be used to voice your discontent. I mean ammo to a firearm is like electricity to a PC/TV, without it, both are useless.

Susan Sarandon once said and I paraphrase here: "The Founding Fathers had muskets, so I think the current gun owners should use muskets". Well one could take that argument and say the founding fathers never envisioned the internet, satellite communications or cell phones all used for communications and can be used and are used to voice discontent. And I believe muskets were farther back, the Founding Fathers had weapons that were state of art for the day.

I guess what I am saying in all this, the founding fathers were much smarter than many today and probably didn't even conceed that they would have to spell out word for word what the Bill of Rights meant.

Going after ammunition is the same as going after Arms in my book. Maybe I am missing something.

Well here we are....:rolleyes:

Rivers
04-21-2009, 11:33 AM
Justice Scalia, in his writing for the prevailing Heller 2A decision, specified that ammunition is included (protected) just as firearms are.

bwiese
04-21-2009, 11:42 AM
Heller was, in part, about functional operational firearms.

An unloaded gun ain't functional or operational.

Ammo prohibitions thus fall into the same category as Heller-prohibited bans on replacement hammers or triggers etc.

SwissFluCase
04-21-2009, 11:53 AM
The Revolutionary war started not so much because of the confiscation of firearms, but because of the attempted confiscation of gunpowder. The founding fathers knew very well what they meant by "arms" and not "guns". Arms meant "lock, stock, barrel, round ball, gun powder, cartridge boxes, bayonets, slings, powder horns" and so on. They got it right in my book.

Anyone who says ammo is not protected is pulling a fast one.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

savageevo
04-21-2009, 12:11 PM
Its the same thing in the first amendment, the right for freedom of speech, If our founding fathers only meant speech, vocal only, Nothing written, arts, expression would not mean anything. I just hope they just don't tax the poo out of the ammo. Then again no taxation without representation.

SwissFluCase
04-21-2009, 12:15 PM
Its the same thing in the first amendment, the right for freedom of speech, If our founding fathers only meant speech, vocal only, Nothing written, arts, expression would not mean anything. I just hope they just don't tax the poo out of the ammo. Then again no taxation without representation.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. No taxes on ammo like no taxes on newspapers and magazines, except general sales tax. You cannot tax a civil right directly.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

CA_Libertarian
04-21-2009, 12:21 PM
I don't think we'll need it, but there is case law out there (sorry, no cite - just something I read years ago).

The case I'm thinking of involved a law prohibiting distribution of printed literature without a license. In essence, the court declared that without the right to distribute, the right to print was meaningless. I remember there being some excellent language in the decision to the effect of: Any essential component of the exercise of a right is just as protected as the right itself.

But, as Gene pointed out, repealing ammo bans would be slam-dunked by Heller alone.

odysseus
04-21-2009, 12:33 PM
Yes, it is pretty clear in Heller that these side attack methods of regulation on legal firearms is an attack on 2nd Amendment rights. Now that it is incorporated in California, law makers should be on notice. However we know they will flirt with ignorance with this to the hilt.

It's all going to be about challenges and fights in court.
.

Seesm
04-21-2009, 1:09 PM
BHO think arms are putting your two meat beaters high up into the air... BUt I think NOT!!