PDA

View Full Version : Are BB guns protected under the Second Amendment


dantodd
08-29-2011, 10:17 PM
It was brought up in one of the De Leon threads about BB guns importance as a training device and as a way to introduce children to the gun culture.

It occurs to me that perhaps BB guns would be protected under 2A. Certainly they are valuable tools for training, just like ranges which Ezell has now shown are protected. Also, they are arms in their own right. They are widely used for depredation and varmint hunting. My first kill was with a BB gun.

taperxz
08-29-2011, 10:32 PM
In regards to the way municipalities regulate them, the right to bear arms, Who said anything about it having to be gun powder, and the potency that can carry, i would have to think YES. But ive been wrong many times before.

dantodd
08-29-2011, 10:37 PM
In regards to the way municipalities regulate them, the right to bear arms, Who said anything about it having to be gun powder, and the potency that can carry, i would have to think YES. But ive been wrong many times before.

SCOTUS gave us a little non-firearms guidance with Maloney. Interestingly the bunches of local laws might help on the "arms" front too. Since the reason they claim to regulate air guns is because they can cause injury therefore they are arms, no?

duggan
08-29-2011, 10:39 PM
Their (the antis) argument will be that they aren't banning BB guns, all they are trying to do is make them easily distinguishable from "real" guns. You know to protect the children and all. I wonder how many manufacturers will cave to this legislation, if going through the hassle to paint them neon will be more expensive than the potential loss of not selling to Cali.?

jimmykan
08-29-2011, 11:25 PM
Well, the word used in the Second Amendment is "Arms" not "Firearms."

So what are "Arms," like weapons, right? Swords and knives are weapons, right? Are they protected by the Second Amendment?

How come I'm not supposed to have certain types of knives, e.g. switchblades and butterflies, in this state? That's unconstitutional.

Anyway, I think it comes down to whether BB guns are considered weapons.

If you shoot another person with a BB gun, you could be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, so I think case law would say yes, they are weapons.

And if they are weapons, then they are "Arms," and if they are "Arms" then they should be protected by the Second Amendment.

Connor P Price
08-29-2011, 11:36 PM
In modern cases arms are being considered to be protected for the purpose of armed conflict with another person. I don't see BB guns being useful for that purpose personally so I wont be terribly surprised if they don't end up being protected.

I'd like to see them protected, but then again I'd like to see darn near every halfway decent means for self defense protected. Knives, guns, nunchaku, bb guns, brass knuckles etc. Go ahead and ban violent criminals from their use, but anything that would be useful to the average citizen for self defense should not be denied to them.

Crom
08-30-2011, 6:19 AM
What does history say? We must understand what it was like at the time the 2nd was written. I don't know but I do hope they will be given protection as they are wonderful training devices.

dantodd
08-30-2011, 6:38 AM
In modern cases arms are being considered to be protected for the purpose of armed conflict with another person. I don't see BB guns being useful for that purpose personally so I wont be terribly surprised if they don't end up being protected.


Well there definitely are air guns (large bore, not .177) that could easily be a real deadly weapon. I am sure that one could also make a training firearm that would largely be "not deadly" though still a handgun or long arm.

swilson
08-30-2011, 6:56 AM
What does history say? We must understand what it was like at the time the 2nd was written.

Airguns existed during the time of the American Revolution, though rare and for the wealthy, but Lewis and Clark carried one on their Expedition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pqFyKh-rUI

Psy Crow
08-30-2011, 7:50 AM
These certainly gave Napolean fits:
Girandoni_Air_Rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle)

Connor P Price
08-30-2011, 8:59 AM
Well there definitely are air guns (large bore, not .177) that could easily be a real deadly weapon. I am sure that one could also make a training firearm that would largely be "not deadly" though still a handgun or long arm.

True, and if IIRC Lewis and Clark had some darn cool ones. However it remains the exception rather than the rule. I'm not saying I think its right but I don't think many judges will see this one our way.

chris12
08-30-2011, 9:00 AM
In modern cases arms are being considered to be protected for the purpose of armed conflict with another person. I don't see BB guns being useful for that purpose personally so I wont be terribly surprised if they don't end up being protected.

I sure hope that isn't the standard. Someone could make a good argument to not include .22 as being useful in armed conflict with another person.

BlindRacer
08-30-2011, 9:07 AM
I don't see how they could not be protected. Even airsoft guns should be protected. I bought an airsoft gun as an inexpensive training aid for a real firearm. In Ezell, training was seen as core to the right, so any other training aid, like bb guns, airsoft guns, wooden swords, plastic sai's, etc., should all be protected.

Beyond training aids, anything that can be used for less lethal defense, like knives, brass knuckles, tazers, ray guns :), etc., should all be protected under the 2nd as well.

If an object is of no danger in a law abiding citizen's hands, then there should be no reason to stop that person from having it. This goes from squirt guns, to full autos. Even canons, etc. It's already against the law to inflict undue injury on a person, so banning, restricting, whatever the object that could cause that injury is of no use.

jimx
08-30-2011, 10:09 AM
True, and if IIRC Lewis and Clark had some darn cool ones.

a while back someone posted an awsome Utube vid on it..

dantodd
08-30-2011, 10:27 AM
.50 and 230ft/lbs of muzzle energy. http://www.pyramydair.com/s/m/Dragon_Claw_Dual_Tank_Air_Rifle/2500

That's enough for self defense. It still isn't a firearm but certainly is an "arm" as unstood at the time the constitution was written as well as today.

CHS
08-30-2011, 10:31 AM
The 2A protects the right to Keep and Bear arms. Arms. Not firearms. Knives, swords, and other defensive weapons are all protected (though there are currently many unconstitutional laws regulating such arms, they are still protected under the 2A). Core to the right is training and becoming proficient in arms, defense, and arms safety.

While a BB gun might not hold the exact same protections as say, a 1911, they most certainly are core to the right as part of training and proficiency and most definitely should and can be considered protected by the 2A.

I would hold that airsoft guns are also protected by the 2A. Hell, the only reason I bought one was as a trainer because I don't think my neighbors want me shooting off .45 in the backyard :)