PDA

View Full Version : Any cases to broaden the word "arms"?


GoodEyeSniper
01-01-2010, 11:26 AM
Just wondering, as there seems to be a lot of potentially good cases in the works, if there is any effort to get out the true meaning of the word "arms". You wouldn't believe the people I've heard say something like "Well, too bad you don't have an amendment protecting your right to carry a knife." <<Said by a police officer when talking about length limit laws.

I just find it a bit silly the laws we have, I'm pretty sure some states that are decent in regards to gun laws outlaw the carrying of Bowie Knives, but not other types of knives... for what reason? I'm not sure. Here in California, I can't carry a little 2" bladed fixed blade in my pocket, but I can carry a 10" folding knife in my pocket, etc....

While I do think the 2nd was made specifically for firearms, I believe the wording was left to leave it open for other weapons intentionally. Whether it's a club, blade, or even Nunchaku.

hoffmang
01-01-2010, 12:11 PM
There is certainly some thought this direction. I know that we're waiting to see what happens to the Nunchuck case - Maloney v. Cuomo. Most likely it will be reversed and remanded to the 2nd Circuit by SCOTUS after McDonald. Assuming things go well, then there are some knife related cases that are interesting around.

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
01-01-2010, 12:11 PM
While I do think the 2nd was made specifically for firearms,Why do you believe that? It was just as common at founding to carry a a sword, dirk or dagger.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-01-2010, 2:10 PM
Why do you believe that? It was just as common at founding to carry a a sword, dirk or dagger.


Or a "hanger." I still haven't figured just what that is, aside from it being some type of edged weapon.


The Raisuli

2009_gunner
01-01-2010, 2:18 PM
Or a "hanger." I still haven't figured just what that is, aside from it being some type of edged weapon.


The Raisuli

The pedia knows all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanger_(weapon)

A cutlass is as often an agricultural implement and tool as it is a weapon (cf. machete, to which the same comment applies), being used commonly in rainforest and sugarcane areas, such as the Caribbean and Central America. Woodsmen and soldiers in the 17th and 18th centuries used a similar short and broad backsword called a hanger.

dustoff31
01-01-2010, 2:37 PM
I want to carry a spontoon. An evil black assault spontoon. With a pistol grip and detachable head, no buttons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontoon

MudCamper
01-01-2010, 2:45 PM
Here in California, I can't carry a little 2" bladed fixed blade in my pocket, but I can carry a 10" folding knife in my pocket, etc....

Just to side-track for a little bit here, you can carry any length folder you want, concealed, legally in California. You just can't carry a fixed blade concealed. And you can carry any length fixed blade unconcealed. Schools are more restrictive of course. I believe it's no locking blades and none over 2.5 inches.

See http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/knifelaw.html

Sunshine
01-01-2010, 3:59 PM
^ for K-12, Colleges tend to be less restrictive. Any folders and fixed blades under 2.5 inches are ok.

Army
01-01-2010, 4:07 PM
"Arms" are those implements that may be employed for offensive or defensive purposes.

"Firearms" are arms that use the burning of a material to propel a projectile.

"Sidearms" can be pistols, swords, or even hatchets that are carried on the side of the person.

The founders lived in the times of Indian attacks and westward exploration. They also just won our independence from an oppressive monarchy that was determined to deny the possession of personal arms. Concord Bridge was the end result of confiscation. The founders knew that denying arms from citizens was not only impossible, but downright suicidal.

GoodEyeSniper
01-01-2010, 8:51 PM
Just to side-track for a little bit here, you can carry any length folder you want, concealed, legally in California. You just can't carry a fixed blade concealed. And you can carry any length fixed blade unconcealed. Schools are more restrictive of course. I believe it's no locking blades and none over 2.5 inches.

See http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/knifelaw.html

yeah, that's why I specified in my pocket :D

I have no desire to walk around with a knife hanging on my hip. Even more so when I can fear an overzealous cop and DA hanging me out to dry if my shirt covers half of it for a few seconds....

7x57
01-01-2010, 9:09 PM
While I do think the 2nd was made specifically for firearms, I believe the wording was left to leave it open for other weapons intentionally. Whether it's a club, blade, or even Nunchaku.

It is only specific to firearms in that it specifically intends to cover the standard military issue weapons of the day as well as whatever effective means you choose--so it has to cover the standard, current technology of the day.

But if you stop there you are reading them in a 20th century context, which has little to do with them. They still had a robust sense of personal honor--they still fought duels, for example. And they were gentlemen, most of them. A gentleman's weapon of honor is his sword. I find it unimaginable that they would have ever permitted the state to take a gentleman's sword in the absence of criminal charges.

Remember, *they are not us* and don't think in modern categories.

All that said, I know of no gentry in my ancestry, so I believe I have the right to bear (as a humbly born but great-hearted Englishman once said) "mine own countrey weapon"; an 8-9 ft metal-shod quarterstaff, or alternatively a forest bill when expecting trouble. :43:

Sad to say I don't believe the law recognizes this ancient right of mine, and somehow I don't think the time is right to press the issue. Say Gene, is CGF ready to take a "right to bear polearms" case? :D

7x57

hoffmang
01-01-2010, 9:12 PM
Sad to say I don't believe the law recognizes this ancient right of mine, and somehow I don't think the time is right to press the issue. Say Gene, is CGF ready to take a "right to bear polearms" case? :D


I think you can already uOC that.

-Gene

7x57
01-01-2010, 9:21 PM
I think you can already uOC that.


I was thinking of exercising this noble right of mine in downtown San Francisco--sure you think I don't need some legal backup for that? :chris:

ETA: OK, I must know--the laws of nature more or less make the carry "open," but what does the "u" stand for?

7x57

hoffmang
01-01-2010, 10:09 PM
I was thinking of exercising this noble right of mine in downtown San Francisco--sure you think I don't need some legal backup for that? :chris:

A good friend of mine who is an SF resident and a practitioner of a certain style of Japanese sword fighting carried his nihontō on his back down Market street all the time. He'd done the research as well.

ETA: OK, I must know--the laws of nature more or less make the carry "open," but what does the "u" stand for?


It's only "unloaded" due to your skillset :p

-Gene

7x57
01-01-2010, 11:48 PM
It's only "unloaded" due to your skillset :p


You know, it's not the burning sensation I mind so much as these ashes all over my keyboard.

Fortunately I have a supply of canned air within reach. :D

7x57

MudCamper
01-02-2010, 12:14 AM
yeah, that's why I specified in my pocket :D

Yeah, I see that now. I was being dyslexic I guess and reversed your cans/can'ts.

nick
01-02-2010, 12:19 AM
I think, I should have the right to challenge those who deny me the right to carry a sword to a duel. After all, Sikhs can carry knives and swords as they're a part of their heritage. A sword is a part of mine, as I'm perfectly willing to prove to any lawmaker who has doubts.

It really is a pity duels are banned... Think of all the laws that we find personally offensive :(

7x57
01-02-2010, 12:32 AM
A sword is a part of mine, as I'm perfectly willing to prove to any lawmaker who has doubts.


Peasant's bill >> Nobleman's sword. :43:


It really is a pity duels are banned... Think of all the laws that we find personally offensive :(

I thought you couldn't duel with the king's officers over the king's orders, only private matters of honor? Sort of an off-duty private thing over spilled wine, insulted mistresses, giving the lie and all that.

7x57

nick
01-02-2010, 12:56 AM
Peasant's bill >> Nobleman's sword. :43:

Depends on the skill with either. Those swords did keep the bills in check for centuries, you know :p

I thought you couldn't duel with the king's officers over the king's orders, only private matters of honor? Sort of an off-duty private thing over spilled wine, insulted mistresses, giving the lie and all that.

7x57

Theoretically, you could challenge the king, him being the first among equals. In fact, unless you're sick of hearing it by now, remind me to tell you how Henry II of France ended his days. You could challenge the king's officers, too.

As the monarchs stabilized and expanded their powers, and the population, including the aristocracy, got used to the idea of the monarch being beyond their reach, the kings began issuing edicts prohibiting duels, precisely becase those were detrimental to their power.

However, whatever the law was, the culture and tradition promoted duels. You could still challenge someone to a duel, and him refusing it on whatever pretext (including being the king's officer on official business) would mean disgrace, which was a big deal at the time. Moreover, he could lose the favor of the king himself due to perceived cowardice. For that matter, you could challenge the king's officers to a duel because their enforcement of whatever laws out there was inconvenient and insulting to you.

The enforcement of anti-duel edicts was spotty, as well, and even when desired, those laws weren't too easy to enforce, given that you'd be enforcing them against the custom of the day and against the better armed and trained part of society. It wasn't until Protestantism changed the custom of the time that the duels were mostly removed from the Western culture (and I say mostly for they survived for a long time after that, they just weren't as mainstream as before).

Of course, while the enforcement was spotty, the state would occasionally make examples out of some duelists, or use the violation of the anti-duel edicts as the pretext to bring down someone who wasn't as easy to bring down otherwise.

It's still a pity though, for we've removed the defense of personal honor from the list of essential rights. All that leads to is people tolerating a lot of abuse and the invasion of their private lives. It also lets the morons run unchecked.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-02-2010, 5:23 AM
While I do think the 2nd was made specifically for firearms, I believe the wording was left to leave it open for other weapons intentionally. Whether it's a club, blade, or even Nunchaku.


In US v Miller there is discussion about the edged weapons that militiamen were expected to bring along. This included "hangers," which is why I've always wondered what one was (my thanks to 2009 gunner for the info on that). So, while the time is not ripe for addressing the issue, edged weapons are also clearly covered by the 2A & maybe Mr. Maloney will be the one to restore that aspect as well.

The Raisuli

hoffmang
01-02-2010, 11:16 AM
In US v Miller there is discussion about the edged weapons that militiamen were expected to bring along.

That discussion is pretty brief and only refers to swords or bayonets.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

-Gene

yellowfin
01-02-2010, 8:30 PM
The big problem I have with Maloney is that it may have been intended to fail, at least for our side, so the potential for sabotage looms.

7x57
01-02-2010, 9:54 PM
Depends on the skill with either. Those swords did keep the bills in check for centuries, you know :p


No, that was the armor and the horses. George Silver, a gentleman and lover of the basket-hilted backsword himself, informed us *in a period when they were still used against each other by experts* that a staff or bill was "too hard" for a single sword. I think he said the polearm "hath the vantage" over a two-handed sword, but gave it a chance (not "too hard"). However, my memory is probably unreliable on the details. But I'm not wrong about his report of the superiority of the light polearm over everything else, longer or shorter(*). In fact, he rather amusingly reports a foolish Italian (naturally, given his feelings about Italian fencing masters) fencing master who drew his rapier on a commoner with an oar and got very much the worse of it. He to some degree excuses the fencer because the oar, being around the right length for a staff, was simply too much weapon to overcome.

* For those concerned about the historicity of that, note that he's only talking about single combat and *not* unit combat, where there are solid reasons to use longer polearms and shields.


Theoretically, you could challenge the king, him being the first among equals.


Theoretically, my right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed. I didn't get that, and I didn't get a pony for Christmas either. So I'm inured to the idea that there might be unofficial reasons I can't challenge the king.

I assumed you meant besides the fact that so far as I know my people were the ones who used the staves and longbows, not the weapons of knightly honor. :-)


In fact, unless you're sick of hearing it by now, remind me to tell you how Henry II of France ended his days. You could challenge the king's officers, too.


Speaking of France, for purposes of our little conversations I choose to believe every word Dumas wrote as the gospel truth. ;)


It's still a pity though, for we've removed the defense of personal honor from the list of essential rights. All that leads to is people tolerating a lot of abuse and the invasion of their private lives. It also lets the morons run unchecked.

Indeed. I've been saying that in the long run we have to set our sights on this legal fiction that self-defense is only excusable if you were "in fear of your life." I have the right to defend both private property and personal honor, and the common law always recognized that so if we go back far enough the precedents are certainly there.

We can't stop at preserving the right to defend against "death or great bodily harm." Note that if I understand CA law (and I may not), in one case of an offense against a liberal protected class this rule was intolerable even to the left. California says that rape is "great bodily harm" *by definition,* even if it isn't (I leave aside the practical issue that one can't know the attacker's intentions, since IIRC the law simply says fear of rape is grounds for defense with deadly force).

It would be better to speak the ethical truth: that a person has the right to defend personal honor and dignity regardless of the degree of threat of "bodily harm." Likewise freedom--one has the absolute right to use deadly force to prevent another putting one's self in their power, regardless of any knowledge or fear. The act of rendering another helpless is itself wrong, as the law seems to still understand (for what else would unlawful detainment be?). One missing part is simply the right to prevent it by any means necessary, and the other is that this is a *duty* on the citizen if they are able. One has a *right* to self-defense, but a *duty* to uphold the law insofar as one is able.

But all that would be too close to admitting that there is a residum of rights undelegated and therefore untouchable, that private property is a right, and that the state is supported by the citizenry, and all that is absolute anathema.

Did I ever mention how depressing it is to do moral philosophy in modern America? :(

7x57

nicki
01-02-2010, 11:48 PM
We actually have bad laws on martial arts arms here in California.

Perhaps we can outreach to some intelligent martial arts instructors and start some case law on various martial arts arms post MacDonald.

Granted, the framers of the 2A probably had little if any exposure to Oriental arms, but that doesn't mean that they aren't useful arms.

Scalia said that a prime purpose of the 2A was self defense. While my preferred choice of a personal defense carry arm would be a Colt 45, I feel that something like nunchuks would be a useful complimentary arm.

Nunchuks would be especially useful in a situation where the threat is there, but maybe not quite enough to justify shooting someone.

Nicki

hoffmang
01-02-2010, 11:56 PM
The big problem I have with Maloney is that it may have been intended to fail, at least for our side, so the potential for sabotage looms.

I suggest loosening the tinfoil.

-Gene

Meplat
01-03-2010, 3:15 AM
Can you openly carry a double edged blade? :43:
Just to side-track for a little bit here, you can carry any length folder you want, concealed, legally in California. You just can't carry a fixed blade concealed. And you can carry any length fixed blade unconcealed. Schools are more restrictive of course. I believe it's no locking blades and none over 2.5 inches.

See http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/knifelaw.html

Meplat
01-03-2010, 3:41 AM
Is a "Hanger" not a sword?

That discussion is pretty brief and only refers to swords or bayonets.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

-Gene

MudCamper
01-03-2010, 9:17 AM
Can you openly carry a double edged blade? :43:

Yes. You can legally open carry a double-edged 3+ foot sword.

I highly recommend reading the link.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-03-2010, 9:50 AM
That discussion is pretty brief and only refers to swords or bayonets.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

-Gene


Well, I clearly didn't hear about hangers from Miller. So, in what Ruling did I read about them?????


The Raisuli

yellowfin
01-03-2010, 10:35 AM
If Maloney wasn't/isn't attempted sabotage, what would they have done differently if it was? As far as I can tell, not a thing different at all. Pro se, refused pro 2A organization help, weak cause yet hitched to the wagon of critical pro gun arguments to get them shot down before we can use them--almost tailor made to sink us in the 2nd Circuit.

hoffmang
01-03-2010, 4:17 PM
If Maloney wasn't/isn't attempted sabotage, what would they have done differently if it was? As far as I can tell, not a thing different at all. Pro se, refused pro 2A organization help, weak cause yet hitched to the wagon of critical pro gun arguments to get them shot down before we can use them--almost tailor made to sink us in the 2nd Circuit.

Never expect malice when incompetence will do. He believes he's correct. It's a dangerous problem that we see again and again - not just with Mr. Gorski.

-Gene

383green
01-03-2010, 5:06 PM
So, are there any knifemakers or swordsmiths here on CGN who'd like to make and market the Calguns Commemorative Cutlass? Or perhaps the Hoffman Hanger? :chris:

nicki
01-03-2010, 6:46 PM
The above comments are why I honestly believe among other reasons that Calguns and the SAF will and in fact are moving forward to build solid case law in the post Heller/MacDonald world.

Nicki

dadoody
01-17-2010, 5:18 AM
The Nunchaku ban is asnine.

The only felonies I've seen are from people who have legitimate reasons to have them in their OWN damn homes.

It's 2 short sticks connected by a string and you can't even possess it in your own homes in California - it illustrates what could happen without the NRA in this state though. There was no large organization to defend the use of nunchucks - so they got banned by the idiots who run this place.

Roadrunner
01-17-2010, 10:36 AM
The Nunchaku ban is asnine.

The only felonies I've seen are from people who have legitimate reasons to have them in their OWN damn homes.

It's 2 short sticks connected by a string and you can't even possess it in your own homes in California - it illustrates what could happen without the NRA in this state though. There was no large organization to defend the use of nunchucks - so they got banned by the idiots who run this place.

This certainly does beg that the question be asked, so I will ask it. What about things like short sticks that people use for fighting or defending themselves? Will incorporation require strict scrutiny on laws restricting people from carrying short striking weapons? What if someone chooses to carry one of those collapsible police batons that cops carry? There's a reason why cops carry a variety of personal weapons, so what about citizens using those same weapons for personal defense?

cbn620
01-17-2010, 11:15 AM
The dress sword needs to come back as a fashion statement. Highly ornamental, decorative rapiers worn on a belt.

I am 100% serious.

bulgron
01-17-2010, 11:31 AM
So, are there any knifemakers or swordsmiths here on CGN who'd like to make and market the Calguns Commemorative Cutlass? Or perhaps the Hoffman Hanger? :chris:

As I'm someone who is always happy to buy good steel (I just ordered a Busse NMSFNO (http://www.bussecombat.com/knives/1ou.html)), I for one would be down for purchasing a Hoffman Hanger. :D

GoodEyeSniper
01-17-2010, 1:28 PM
The dress sword needs to come back as a fashion statement. Highly ornamental, decorative rapiers worn on a belt.

I am 100% serious.

I'd opt for a Small Sword over a Rapier any day. Rapier is too long and clumsy for my taste :chris:

This turned into a pretty interesting thread in multiple ways, haha. I like the whole "defending honor" bit, but you can see where that clearly goes too far with "thugs". Gangsters often go pretty far to defend whatever they consider honor or "rep", and I don't condone that at all :cool:

And about the Calguns swords/blades. Bladeforums has a lot of custom knifemakers, you can get some pretty nice, and big if you wish, custom knives made for less than you would think. I'm sure they could get something about calguns on there. An actual sword might be a bit much, but a big bowie knife or something would be doable :D

Librarian
01-17-2010, 3:23 PM
I'd opt for a Small Sword over a Rapier any day. Rapier is too long and clumsy for my taste :chris:Pfui. 1 1/2-handers (http://armor.com/sword100.html) rule (http://armor.com/sword081.html). :cool2:

Though, actually, a gladius (http://www.armorysupply.com/merchant.ihtml?&lastcid=321&pid=38733&Step=4) variant would be more practical.

dadoody
01-18-2010, 2:45 AM
Pfui. 1 1/2-handers (http://armor.com/sword100.html) rule (http://armor.com/sword081.html). :cool2:

Though, actually, a gladius (http://www.armorysupply.com/merchant.ihtml?&lastcid=321&pid=38733&Step=4) variant would be more practical.

Hey that's a Paul Chen/Hanwei forged Gladius. That stuff is pretty much the real deal combat wise.

1JimMarch
01-18-2010, 3:41 AM
The Oregon Supreme Court declared switchblades protected under that state's RKBA clause.

Lagduf
01-18-2010, 4:01 AM
Hey that's a Paul Chen/Hanwei forged Gladius. That stuff is pretty much the real deal combat wise.

We need a CGF Gladius.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-22-2010, 7:44 AM
The dress sword needs to come back as a fashion statement. Highly ornamental, decorative rapiers worn on a belt.

I am 100% serious.


Oh, thank goodness! I am not the only one who thinks this. Anticipating the day, I already have such a thing ready to go once Mr. Maloney wins his case.


The Raisuli

MudCamper
01-22-2010, 9:30 AM
Oh, thank goodness! I am not the only one who thinks this. Anticipating the day, I already have such a thing ready to go once Mr. Maloney wins his case.

But it's legal to carry a sword in California now, just not concealed. I would love to carry one. I took fencing classes for 4 semesters, and can use one effectively. But the social stigma and unwanted attention it would garner is not worth it. The problem with CA law is that sword-canes are illegal per 12020. I would definitely carry one of those if they weren't illegal.

dantodd
01-22-2010, 10:46 AM
But it's legal to carry a sword in California now, just not concealed. I would love to carry one. I took fencing classes for 4 semesters, and can use one effectively. But the social stigma and unwanted attention it would garner is not worth it. The problem with CA law is that sword-canes are illegal per 12020. I would definitely carry one of those if they weren't illegal.

I wonder if a sword cane is "dangerous and unusual?"

loather
01-22-2010, 12:17 PM
Unusual, perhaps, but only insofar as they've been illegal in California for quite some time. I'd also carry a sword cane. I have need of a cane anyways, as my knees are deteriorating and it hurts to walk.

Dangerous? Weapons by definition are dangerous. The problem with using vague language like that is that it's entirely subjective. Really, the same thing goes for, "unusual" -- Sure, I find cane swords unusual because I've not ever been exposed to one. Someone who has seen them all their life though might not think the same way.

Either way, it's bad law ...

Mulay El Raisuli
01-23-2010, 4:49 AM
But it's legal to carry a sword in California now, just not concealed. I would love to carry one. I took fencing classes for 4 semesters, and can use one effectively. But the social stigma and unwanted attention it would garner is not worth it. The problem with CA law is that sword-canes are illegal per 12020. I would definitely carry one of those if they weren't illegal.


But not everywhere. Oceanside (as one example) outlaws the carrying of "dangerous weapons" openly. The local cops will stop you even if all you're carrying is a sheath knife. I hate to think what they'd to do me if I strapped on my rapier & strolled down the pier. :eek:


The Raisuli