Sorry. Haynes v. United States took away the registration requirements because of Fifth Amendment rights, but not the illegality of certain weapons.
I’m not sure what this means. The weapons are only illegal if they’re not registered with the ATF. That’s what they originally charged Randy Weaver for: selling a pair of unregistered short-barrel shotguns to an informant.
It is always trotted out that repeating rifles existed when the FFs wrote the Bill of Rights.
While that is true the takeaway here should be that the FFs had no concept of what a world with such weapons looked like. Their view on weapons were muskets, cannons and swords. They did not imagine anything else when writing the 2nd amendment.
And they also had no concept of a world with radio, television, cable television, the Internet, or Twitter when they wrote the First Amendment.
Also:
So, you think the authors of the Second Amendment would have been saying “Warships with cannons on them are perfectly OK, but a rifle that can fire multiple times before you have to reload it?!? Whoa, Nelly! That’s going too far!”
None of which are potentially lethal.
Yes. Sail powered warships with muzzle loaded cannons were only dangerous in specific circumstances.
If you showed the FFs Chicago today I am willing to bet they’d rethink that amendment.
This “2nd Amendment should only cover muskets” argument (in all its oft-repeated variations) is easily the weakest and worst-thought-out position that I see the gun control crowd regularly take. It serves primarily as a testament to the ignorance of the person advancing it.
Good thing I didn’t do that then.
That doesn’t make sense to me. Sure, the FFs would not have been able to predict the precise weaponry that would develop. But they certainly would have understood that weapons technology would continue to advance. And, if the principal difference between weapons in the 1700s and weapons now are that they are more accurate or have a higher rate of fire, then they absolutely would have known that that would happen.
I advance it against those who argue them meaning of “well-regulated” at the time the amendment was passed is different from what it means now. That is also true of “arms”.
And note the amendment says “arms” not firearms. Where is the uproar when nunchucks, throwing stars, brass knuckles, etc. are outlawed.
Actually, in NY Maloney as a pro se litigant has been contesting the NY ban on nunchucks since as early as 2007. He lost at the federal appellate level but after McDonald was decided in 2010 SCOTUS vacated that decision and remanded for further proceedings. It is still ongoing.
Typically other arms are much more difficult to become proficient in and are most of the time less effective defense tools. Caetano at SCOTUS reaffirmed the idea that the “arms” protected under the 2nd amendment are not limited to firearms when it reversed a conviction for stun gun possession. After Caetano a number of other jurisdictions repealed their stun gun bans.
The problem is that these things take time, money, and litigation. I’d carry and ASP today if it was allowed, not to mention a firearm. But there really isn’t a baton lobby that is as strong as the NRA and other groups like SAF. KnifeRights is another group that is making a lot of progress on the switchblade front.
If they did then that lends credence to the notion that the 2nd amendment was to form a “well regulated militia”. Hmmm…
Why?
And that without getting into the question of what “well regulated” means.
Generally okay per the 5th Amendment. With relevant bolding and truncation:
“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
And doves, migratory but not waterfowl.
Belton flintlock, which the Continental Congress saw with their own eyes.
There is some. My state legalized switchblades last year. None of these are inherently more dangerous than legal weapons, and often less effective due to a high training requirement. But Hollywood showed us dangerous ninjas and Puerto Ricans, and hysteria led on.
I’m pretty sure that any speech that incites to violence is against the law. Using hate speech in general terms is protected, but using it as “fighting words” is not.
I’m curious about my particular variation; what would you say to, “The 2nd Amendment should cover whatever arms the law defines as being covered, but the founding fathers would have been thinking in terms of musketry and early rifles”?
Who is President of the United States right now? The potentially lethal narcissistic demagogue who is now President of the United States didn’t get elected because his supporters used “assault weapons” to shoot everyone and seize power. Trump gained power through forms of free speech that were totally inconceivable to the Founding Fathers–talk radio, cable news (Fox News), the Internet (Breitbart), and Twitter. You do free speech no favors by claiming that free speech is just some harmless right without consequences, and therefore it’s OK to let the rubes have their free speech (but not guns, 'cause someone could get hurt with those!).
Free speech (especially–but not only–the 21st century forms of free speech that exist in the Electronic Age) in the hands of a demagogue who cares about nothing and nobody but himself is incredibly dangerous–just check the news. It’s just that the solutions to that problem, other than more free speech, are also incredibly dangerous.
If we are going with your notion that they could foresee improvements in weapons and understand what that meant I doubt they would have gladly written a protection for arms that would lead to rampant gun violence in US cities. So they didn’t, they wrote the amendment to protect ownership when connected with a well regulated militia.
They did not guess everyone would simply ignore what was written though.
That was an awesome American Experience on PBS.
The pen is mightier than the sword?
As it happens you do not need free speech protections to get demagogues. We’ve seen them crop up throughout history and I wold submit the best defense against them is free speech.
Also, that danger is at some remove. I will be far more worried about someone pointing a gun at me than I will at a person yelling at me. YMMV
So what? Till you see them in action on a grand scale (i.e. they are ubiquitous and not a curiosity) you cannot really fathom what the new tech really means.
Consider WWI. The generals knew what weapons they had but sent their troops into a meat grinder against them repeatedly. Eventually they learned. When the US showed up what did they do? They ignored the experience of the troops who already learned hard lessons and sent their troops into the meat grinder. Only after incredibly costly lessons did everyone figure out what these new weapons really meant. The FFs would have had no such experience.
Heck, IIRC it wasn’t till about 1850 with design of the 1863 Sharps Carbine that the world saw an effective and widely adopted breech loading rifle and it still used percussion caps to fire (as did most Civil War era rifles). Someone well trained with one could fire maybe 10 times per minute. So, the FFs never saw anything approaching what we have available today.