NJCSD Predicts Supreme Court Will Acknowledge 2nd Amendment as Individual Right

Arms = anything and everything

Small arms fire = squad machine guns, crew-served weapons, rocket propelled grenades.

Basically everything

If the right to bear arms is not absolute, then government will try anything and everything they can to make it harder to own arms. And I’m talking about an anti-aircraft gun on your roof if you so desire (and can afford it).

"I think I would limit it to arms that a person could bear"

If the citizen militia was to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions", you feel they could do this with arms limited to those which a person could bear?

I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Does the second amendment protect an individual right for self defense or was it written to protect the right of the citizens, collectively, to form a well regulated (organized and armed) state militia?

It seems like you want to say it does both, but then you're forced to come up with a definition of "arms" that I don't see in the second amendment. Perhaps if it said "firearms" I might agree with your interpretation.

You are correct. I should stop using the word "reasonable" because it is confusing.

To me, a reasonable regulation of a fundamental right is a law which passes a strict scutiny test. A reasonable regulation of a non-fundamental right is a law which passes a rational basis review.

I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Does the second amendment protect an individual right for self defense or was it written to protect the right of the citizens, collectively, to form a well regulated (organized and armed) state militia?

I think it's intended to do both because (A) the distinction between the two was not as large as it is today and (B) the Constitution before the 14th Amendment did not bind states in the same way that it did after the 14th Amendment, thus allowing states to work out the distinctions we are trying to work out at a federal level.

One page I looked at, since you are demanding specifics, says that "bearing arms" was often a euphemism for going to war. That suggests a militia interpretation with local control. Remember that the Constitution also requires that Congress reauthorize the Army every 2 years because it opposed the idea of a central standing army. In fact, the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776 (a predecessor of the Bill of Rights) states, "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

But the 2nd Amendment also protects a person's right to keep arms, which suggests allowing people to take arms home with them. From a pragmatic standpoint, I would argue that during the period when this was written, it would be assumed that a person would take a firearm home with them and hang it over the mantle but not keep a canon in their barn.

And I suppose I should point out, again, that the Constitution opposed the idea of a standing army. I don't think the Founders intended people to take canons (or tanks or bombers) home to fight the government but expected the government to not have a large standing army with canons (or tanks or bombers) that the people would have to fight if they needed to go after the government. It's not practical to allow private citizens to own weapons that can do the sort of damage required to overcome a modern army but as the Founders designed the Constitution, there shouldn't be a modern standing army for them to have to overcome.

What I mean is that there shouldn't be a modern standing army if you follow the intent of the Founders, which was opposed to a standing army (the Virginia Declaration of Rights from 1776 reads ("That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."). I do not personally think it's practical in the modern world to not have a standing army.

"I think it's intended to do both because (A) the distinction between the two was not as large as it is today"

If so, then it's awkward to define "arms" without going through some contortions and finding some hidden definition in the second amendment that just isn't there (eg., "arms" are weapons that are carried).

"the Constitution before the 14th Amendment did not bind states in the same way that it did after the 14th Amendment"

While it's true that some amendments in the Bill of Rights were "incorporated" under the 14th, the second amendment was not.

"But the 2nd Amendment also protects a person's right to keep arms, which suggests allowing people to take arms home with them."

It protects the right of "the people" to keep arms, yes.

"I don't think the Founders intended people to take canons (or tanks or bombers) home to fight the government but expected the government to not have a large standing army with canons (or tanks or bombers) that the people would have to fight if they needed to go after the government"

True. But the people were expected to "repel invasions", and an invading army would have them. The second amendment had to protect large weapons also.

"What I mean is that there shouldn't be a modern standing army if you follow the intent of the Founders, which was opposed to a standing army"

Correct. The plan was to have well regulated state Militias -- they were deemed "necessary to the security of a free state".

But that changed after the War of 1812 when is was found that the concept was a failure -- most militia members showed up unarmed and untrained.