What the Supreme Court Has Said aboutthe Second Amendment

apfn.org ^ | ?? | By David B. Kopel

[copycat]

Good analysis. The commas mean a seperation of thought and are all important. Parley

There is only one comma in the original. AFAIK, two commas were added by FDR.

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

The elite cannot abide the common man

Please one and all on this forum, can we stop using the word elite, the choice part; esp: a socially superior group and start using elitist a belief or advocacy of rule by an elite. I don't have a problem with one who may be elite but I do have a problem with an elitist aka HRC.

[The_Pickle]

All definitions are courtesy of Merriam-Webster and are not my own.

However the point of the post was to show that even by the loosest definitions the 2nd amendment is about the rights of the people.

As for the the definition of infringe: wouldn't you, as most people do, consider the Constitution to be the the highest Law of the land?

[supercat]

arms (a means, as in a weapon, of offense or defense)

But does the term include any and all such objects as might be used for such purpose? If so, on what items is the government allowed to place taxes or any other restriction?

IMHO, and the Court in Miller seemed to take this view, the prefatory phrase of the Second Amendment serves to clarify that the "Arms" protected thereby are those artifacts which could be used effectively as weapons in the context of a well-functioning citizen army.

M-16 clearly included. Glock 19 clearly included. Cane gun, perhaps not.

[KrisKrinkle]

"The people in the courtroom would only open fire in self defense, of course."

Somehow I don't think what the Founders had in mind was that the right to bear arms would include allowing a defendant to bear arms while being tried on a capital charge so that on conviction, the defendant could take a few innocent people down with him as the surviving people in the courtroom cut him down in self defense.

Respecting "each others right" presumes a common and correct understanding of what constitutes such right and where it ends. Or if not a common and correct understanding, at least an understanding that is sufficently correct and prevalent that a just society can exist.

[KrisKrinkle]

"Cane gun, perhaps not."

Now that's more along the lines of what I was trying to get at in my post 15.

The "right to bear arms" may not include the right to bear a cane gun.

Now, if not, why not?

[supercat]

Somehow I don't think what the Founders had in mind was that the right to bear arms would include allowing a defendant to bear arms while being tried on a capital charge so that on conviction, the defendant could take a few innocent people down with him as the surviving people in the courtroom cut him down in self defense.

For people, substitute "all free persons". Obviously slaves were never intended to have arms, either.

[supercat]

The "right to bear arms" may not include the right to bear a cane gun.

Now, if not, why not?

Just about any object can be used as a weapon. If the government were forbidden from taxing or placing any restrictions upon every item which could possibly used as a weapon, it would be unable to tax or restrict much of anything.

The variety of items which could potentially be useful as weapons in a well-functioning citizen army is quite large, and probably encompases most artifacts that would normally be described as "weapons". One might reasonably question, however, whether a cane gun could be effectively so used. Most such weapons are apt to be no more readily kept at hand than a pistol and are apt to be more difficult to fire either quickly or accurately. As such, their military usefulness may be dubious at best.

Something like a Glock 17 or M-16, however, would have clearly demonstrable military usefulness; something like a Bryco model 38, while not used by any military, could reasonably be allowed as a poor person's "nearest equivalent" to a good military pistol.