PDA

View Full Version : What are "arms"?


GuyW
04-23-2009, 7:20 PM
So, what exactly are 2nd Amendment arms?

IMHO, in addition to firearms of all stripes (including "dangerous AND unusual) they MUST also include any "bearable" item that can be used for hunting, fishing, (self-) defense or (militia-) offense, such as:

Archery
crossbows
slingshots
blowguns
air rifles
garrotes (sp? / sentries)
sharkguns
spears
swords
knives
nunchucks
batons
canes
clubs
tomahawks (ie Patriot movie)
electric guns (?)
ray guns

What else?

Ding126
04-23-2009, 7:24 PM
canon ?

bohoki
04-23-2009, 7:32 PM
yea where is my 2nd amendment protecting nunchucks and ninja stars

PolishMike
04-23-2009, 7:33 PM
This is the first thing that comes up on google images -
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/SQUID/arranging_arms.jpg

762cavalier
04-23-2009, 7:33 PM
Mace
Flail
Lance
Staff

Trebuchet
catapult

:43::43:

freakshow10mm
04-23-2009, 7:40 PM
Historically, arms was any weapon that is able to be carried by a single person. Ordnance is that which cannot be readily carried by a single person, like artillery, bombs, etc.

Arms has lately only been held to be firearms, but history shows it encompasses other weapons, ie armed with a baseball bat, armed with a knife, armed with a club, armed with a spear, armed with a rock, etc.

Dark&Good
04-23-2009, 8:10 PM
http://www.upitall.com/Public/Pictures/_arms.jpg
.
Arms.

eflatminor
04-23-2009, 8:31 PM
We agreed to a standing army if the people could bear the same arms they do. It's really that simple.

SwissFluCase
04-23-2009, 8:40 PM
We agreed to a standing army if the people could bear the same arms they do. It's really that simple.

We *were* supposed to be the standing army. We need the same weapons any American soldiers would need.

I could go through the rest of my life without seeing another pair of nunchucks again, however.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

eflatminor
04-23-2009, 9:28 PM
We *were* supposed to be the standing army. We need the same weapons any American soldiers would need.

That was the central argument: whether the people would be the army (kinda sorta like the Swiss do it now) or if the government would have a standing army at it's disposal. Whatever your point of view, we decided on the latter, balancing that with the Bill of Rights.

Theoretically, it should work.

AlexBreya
04-23-2009, 9:33 PM
This obviously doesnt apply to blow guns, since we dont have the right to have them in CA...

SwissFluCase
04-23-2009, 9:58 PM
This obviously doesnt apply to blow guns, since we dont have the right to have them in CA...

That's becuase the CA legislature thinks guns blow. :p

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Publius
04-24-2009, 7:51 AM
I think there are two reasonable definitions of "arms":

1. Any weapon.

2. Any man-portable weapon ordinarily used by an individual.

Both definitions have some support in period usage. I think the latter probably makes more sense overall, and is obviously far more likely to be accepted by the courts (and even that's a stretch).

CHS
04-24-2009, 8:03 AM
Slungshots.


I don't know what the hell a slungshot even is, but they're illegal in CA so I want one.

Also: switchblades and ballistic knives.

In my opinion, *ANYTHING* that can be used for self-defense that is less powerful than your average firearm, must be AUTOMATICALLY legal.


To another poster: Cannons are already perfectly legal in CA :) You want a Napoleon 6-pounder? Just buy one from Dixie gun works.

Whiskey_Sauer
04-24-2009, 8:07 AM
I'll be the first to say it:

Phased plasma rifle, 40 watt range.

Publius
04-24-2009, 8:22 AM
I'll be the first to say it:

Phased plasma rifle, 40 watt range.

Hate to say it, but I don't think 40-watt plasma rifles would count as "arms." Assuming it generated a continuous stream of plasma, a half-second burst from such a weapon would deliver about 15 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. That's a fraction of the energy of a .22, and delivered over a much longer time. :)

fnman
04-24-2009, 8:33 AM
slungshot

Popular during the 19th century, slungshots are simple weapons that involve a weight that is tied to the end of a length of cord. The slungshot can be deployed in two different ways, both of them relatively simple to master. While no longer popular, the slungshot was often a favorite street weapon among youth gangs in metropolitan areas during the 1830’s through the 1890’s.
The most common means of using the slungshot involved tying the unweighted end of the cord to the wrist. The remainder of the cord was bunched in the palm of the hand, along with the weight on the opposite end. When attacking an opponent, the weight is thrown into the face, quickly retracted and thrown again. Regular practice would allow the user of slungshot to become proficient with the device, delivering blows in quick succession in a manner similar to using a yo-yo.

SwissFluCase
04-24-2009, 8:38 AM
slungshot

Popular during the 19th century, slungshots are simple weapons that involve a weight that is tied to the end of a length of cord. The slungshot can be deployed in two different ways, both of them relatively simple to master. While no longer popular, the slungshot was often a favorite street weapon among youth gangs in metropolitan areas during the 1830’s through the 1890’s.
The most common means of using the slungshot involved tying the unweighted end of the cord to the wrist. The remainder of the cord was bunched in the palm of the hand, along with the weight on the opposite end. When attacking an opponent, the weight is thrown into the face, quickly retracted and thrown again. Regular practice would allow the user of slungshot to become proficient with the device, delivering blows in quick succession in a manner similar to using a yo-yo.

Are you telling me that having what amounts to an overweight yo-yo is a FELONY!?! :puke:

Thanks for explaining this. I really had no idea. I wonder if even the cops/DAs know?

Regards,


SwissFluCase

nat
04-24-2009, 8:46 AM
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/9/9b/Right_To_Bear_Arms.jpg

:43:

Fate
04-24-2009, 10:19 AM
Here's a legal definition: The word 'arms' in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the saber, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms. -English v State, Texas 473, 476 (1871-2).

CHS
04-24-2009, 10:26 AM
The word 'arms' in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the saber, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms. -English v State, Texas 473, 476 (1871-2).

I officially need a Siege Gun now.

Fate
04-24-2009, 10:33 AM
I officially need a Siege Gun now.
I need a tank. :43:

GunSlinga
04-24-2009, 10:51 AM
From Heller v. DC:

“The 18th-century meaning [of ‘arms’] is no different
from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s
dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘weapons of offence, or armour of
defence.’ . . . Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal
dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘any thing that a man wears for his
defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or
strike another.’”

Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2791.