Replies

It sets out classic, historic, academic and precedentual support of its unequivocal finding that the second amendment defines an individual right to keep and bear pistols and rifles in support of self defense and other lawful uses.

The second amendment says nothing about limiting our arms to rifles and pistols. It goes far deeper than that. It is meant to arm us against the government should such need arise, therefore we are not limited to any certain types of arms. Of course I would not expect any modern judge to read the amendment the way it is written.

"The second amendment says nothing about limiting our arms to rifles and pistols."

The second amendment says nothing about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" except that it shall not be infringed.

If I recall correctly:

Jefferson said "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" which might imply that someone who is not a "free man" can be debarred the use of arms and that the "right of the people to bear arms" does not extend to those who are not free men.
Samuel Adams wanted to ban any law that would "prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" which might imply that people who are not of the United States and/or who are not peaceable citizens might be prevented from keeping their own arms and that the "right of the people to bear arms" does not extend to those people.
Early state constitutions and such said things about the right to bear arms for personal defense, defense of the state and hunting, which might imply that the right might be limited to those purposes.

And yet none of this is reflected in the Second Amendment, which conveys a broader yet undefined view of the right under discussion.

As you correctly say, "It goes far deeper than that. It is meant to arm us against the government should such need arise, therefore we are not limited to any certain types of arms."

I'd venture they left it undefined because they had recently been through a War of Revolution and feared that such a war might be necessary again but couldn't bring themselves to write an amendment stating "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed because they might need those arms to overthrow the government established by this Constitution."

So they wrote what they wrote and left it to those who followed (not all of whom have been as thoughtful as the Founders) to figure things out.

Conservatives/gun rights advocates need to explore the scope of the "right to keep and bear arms", what might be covered by the right and what might not be covered. From what I've seen, that's done only to a certain extent on FR by those who argue "gun rights" versus "property rights". As I read Parker the scope of the "right to keep and bear arms" is going to become more important and need more thought.

The second amendment says nothing about limiting our arms to rifles and pistols. It goes far deeper than that. I

While that is indeed true, the judges can only address the case before them, which involves rifles, handguns and shotguns.

Once the Courts establish that the right protected is an individual one, then will come the the time to define the meaning of "arms".

Again, IMHO, arms is arms, from swords to 155mm howitzers and F-16s.

I take that back *not* IMHO, but in the opinions of the founding fathers.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Tench Cox, Writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the _Philadelphia Federal Gazette,_ June 18, 1789, p.2 col.1

"The powers of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sward are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no right to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789