Legal Definition of Arms

[lilro]

http://thelawdictionary.org/arms/

According to this, the 2nd Amendment does not protect semi-automatic AR-15s. They are not military arms. They are only military-STYLE arms.

However, selective-fire M4 carbines ARE military arms.

Therefore, we have a right to own M4 "assault rifles."

Right?

It would be unconstitutional to ban "military characteristics." The 2nd Amendment specifically protects military characteristics.

And the Heller decision allows for weapons that are in "common use", so semi-auto ARs are protected by that.

Am I missing something? Why isn't the Black's Law definition of arms used by any lawyers in Supreme Court cases?

[Rusty_Rebar]

Miller would seem to support the idea that a true m-4 assault-rifle should be legal, while a Ruger 10-22 would not be (no military use).

[Librarian]

Seems to be in the wind this week.

Please see the amicus briefs in Heller, link below. This was a topic of extensive discussion there, and somewhat in the final opinion of the court.

[hoffmang]

Your citation is out of date.

Here is what Heller has to say about arms:

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

-Gene

[CitaDeL]

uhm...

Just entertaining the thought. Heller added to the jurisprudence- but didnt obsolese Miller arguements about consitutionally protected arms. So- shouldnt both arms in common use for self-defense AND those used by the military both be under the same umbrella of protection?

ETA; Since the NFA has prohibited military arms for nearly 80 years, how could they be in common use by ordinary men for militia purposes?

[LOW2000]

Agreed, there is something of a circular argument when you say something like "in common use" but laws having banned them prevents that from being the case.

[stingray4540]

uhm...

ETA; Since the NFA has prohibited military arms for nearly 80 years, how could they be in common use by ordinary men for militia purposes?

Exactly. There is not doubt that if the NFA didn't exist, every AR and AK, and most semi auto arms in general, would be select fire.

Imagine the NFA didn't exist, why would I buy a semi-auto AR, when I can buy a select fire one, and just set it to semi-auto when I want to shoot it that way. They would therefore be "in common use".

[phrogg111]

An "arm", as used in the bill of rights, would be "any weapon, capable of assaulting people, that is capable of maintaining the security of a free state."

Muskets are arms. AR-15s are arms. M4s and M249s are arms. They're all arms, because they're all capable of maintaining the security of a free state, and capable of deadly force.

That being said, clearly the M4s and M249s are the best for maintaining the security of a free state.