Shouldn't flint-lock muskets and pistols be the only legal weapons in the US of A?

[KY_EnviroGuy]

If we all believed in constitutional originalism like some on our Supreme Court, then "arms" would mean only those arms available to citizens of the original 13 States in 1789 when the Constitution was finally ratified. That is, black powder and ball muskets and pistols.

What would Justices Thomas and Barrett say?.............

We're at a level of meanness and insanity now that should demand we revert back to only sticks and stones and even those would need to be strictly regulated.


KY......... ....... .......

[Gore1FL]

1. I don't know if we need to take it to quite that level.

There is a ceiling, and it is well below AR-15-like weapons.

[Thomas Hurt]

2. Constitutional originalism like Biblical literalism are more flexible then you would imagine.

[LastDemocratInSC]

10. Good point.

[PTWB]

3. Does the 1st amendment apply to modern technologies such as the internet?

Yes, it does.

[Frasier Balzov]

11. Yet it does not apply to child pornography.

Because of the *potential* that such material might lead to children being abused.

The potential that kids will get shot isn't as concerning, apparently.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

4. No, and this question has already been answered by SCOTUS

Caetano v Massachusetts from 2016. Caetano was arrested for the possessions of a stun gun. The Massachusetts State Supreme Court eventually ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the taser because it was not in existence at the time. It was appealed to SCOTUS and they overturned the conviction. It was a Per Curiam decision. There were no dissents. The decision stated "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding". The Massachusetts Supreme Court then overturned her conviction and struck down the law banning possession of tasers.

[moondust]

5. Earlier today

Last edited Sat May 28, 2022, 11:48 PM - Edit history (1)

I was wondering if SCOTUS has ever ruled on what the drafters intended by use of the word "arms" in 1791 when 2A was ratified. They certainly didn't mean semi-automatic weapons or tactical nukes that didn't exist and may have been unimaginable. If semi-automatic weapons are okay under the definition of "arms" then why not tactical nukes? Who decided that's what the drafters intended and isn't that an arbitrary ruling? Of course the "well-regulated militia" framework for 2A--in a young country without a standing army but still needing a national defense--has long been ignored.

As for 1A, the first printing press arrived in colonial America by the mid 17th century. So the drafters were aware of how mass media could spread information.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

6. They have

See Caetano vs Massachusetts. It was a Per Curiam ruling. No dissents. In it they stated "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding".

[moondust]

7. "bearable arms"

would naturally include RPGs, shoulder-fired missiles, hand grenades, etc., right? And what about UAVs/drones/kamikaze drones whose control units would seem easy to "bear" and which can pack a charge strong enough to take out a Russian tank?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

12. Technically, rockets, grenades, and other explosives are legal federally

They are considered destructive devices. Pay the tax, register them, do the required paperwork, and have ATF approved storage for them and a person could own them. Now finding a company willing to sell them would be near impossible. Grenade launchers, artillery, and tanks with working guns also fall under this. Tanks with disabled guns aren't regulated at all. Now, individual states may have their own laws restricting this stuff more then Federal law.

[hunter]

8. I don't know. How many slaves do you own?

On larger plantations you might need more firepower.

.

.

.

[UTUSN]

9. Originalists don't get that change was made immediately with 10 Amendments and the concept of

amending.

[Oneironaut]

13. Not really, but, the original purpose of the amendment was to have a standing defense.

This was a time where there were attacks by Native Americans (who were defending their territory mostly), rebellions, periods of unrest, etc. Major cities were far apart, armies were less mobile, and inter-continental wars were a bit harder (though still highly possible) to fight.

Also, the primary purpose was to negate the need for a standing army, which the Founders believed could be used to oppress the population. The foreseen purpose of a citizen militia was NOT to overthrow the government. It was to raise to the task when called upon by the government, and then dismantle when the threat is gone / the war is over. The Founders believed ad hoc state militias could sufficiently protect the nation, and they generally could back then (with the use of military assets such as weaponry, cannons, frigates, etc.).

[Sandy Becker]

14. Don't be silly. The whole point was ...

The whole point was a citizen militia to be ready to fight a foreign invasion at a moment's notice.
What if anything does this have to do with current conditions?

So ...

1) No implicit restrictions to then current technology.

2) **** Really totally nothing to do with what the RW claims as their rights. ****

This is a weak talking point because it distracts from the real issue.

[NowISeetheLight]

15. As Scalia would've said

The Constitution isn't a living document... it's written in stone. So if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution it is up to the states (right Alito?).

Likewise the Constitution talks about states maintaining a militia NOT the right of individuals to own weapons. That was a created right per the SCOTUS in the 80's.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger once said, “The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”