"The right to keep and bear arms..."

[Binkie The Clown]

Nowhere in the second amendment does it say "the right to keep and bear guns."

It seems to me that the second amendment includes the right to bear arms of any kind, including a broadsword, flail or mace as well as more exciting arm like crossbows and bullwhips.

Is it my constitutional right to open carry these arms? I don't see why not.



I want to see what happens if I walk through Times Square holding a razor sharp pole axe over my shoulder.

[JustAnotherGen]

1. Want me to try?

We also have my husband's service saber.

[Zeitghost]

2. Somebody

Has never been to a Ren Faire or a Home Depot.

[Binkie The Clown]

3. Have been. And took fencing in college 50 or 60 years ago. nt

[Zeitghost]

4. So then you should be aware

That carrying many blunt or bladed weapons is completely legal and always has been.

Or am I missing your point?

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. Not in California. Nt

[Zeitghost]

10. Yes, even in California

You can open carry a blade and many other weapons.

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Many restrictions apply, particularly to locations where carrying is restricted

https://www.riderzlaw.com/knife-laws-in-california/

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/knife-laws/

[Zeitghost]

12. Yes, there are a few restrictions

But you can open carry swords, daggers, knives and other weapons in California.

[PTWB]

5. The 2nd has been interpreted to cover arms that are in common use.

[Frasier Balzov]

13. That's one of the most insidious things about the Heller decision.

It normalizes increased lethality in an ever worsening definition of "common use."

[Srkdqltr]

6. It also does not give the right to shoot any one.

[Omnipresent]

8. Our "cartoonish supreme court" will sign off, for all that...

How ridiculous can they get?
There doesn’t appear to be a limit.

[unblock]

14. Nunchucks? brass knuckles? Ammonium nitrate?

[maxsolomon]

15. The better question is why FULL-AUTOMATICS are restricted.

Those are clearly ARMAMENTS. The Gubmint has clearly INFRINGED on people possessing them by requiring a license/permit/whatever the hell they require for Machine Guns made prior to 1986, and BANNING sales to civilians of those made after.

Yet Gunner Pols don't try to overturn the 1934 National Firearms Act or the 1986 Firearm Owners' Protection Act, at least not that I'm aware of. It also doesn't appear to be objectionable to the NRA or other Gunner lobbyist groups.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/machine-guns-50-caliber/#:~:text=Federal%20law%20prohibits%20the%20possession,guns%20are%20still%20in%20circulation.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

16. US vs Miller in 1939 was a challenge to the 1934 NFA

With this decision and its new standard to review gun laws, I would expect a new challenge to all the above soon.

[maxsolomon]

17. Can't wait!

Full-Automatics in possession of Right-Wing Paramilitary Groups parading through Liberal cities.

That's not intimidation, that's just Rights-Exercise.

[Calista241]

19. Everyone who actually knows anything about firearms thinks they'll look even more ridiculous. n/t

[Calista241]

18. Fully automatic firearms would ironically be safer for everyone

Nearly all infantrymen in the armed forces are taught to to shoot in select fire mode, 1 round at a time. Not out of a desire to conserve ammo, but because it's more accurate.

Physics are still physics, and fully automatic shooting is orders of magnitude less accurate than semi-automatic shooting. There was even some talk of removing the fully automatic setting from M4's sold to the military, but they didn't follow through with it.

[maxsolomon]

20. LOL, that sure sounds a lot safer.

Contact your Congressman and demand those laws be overturned! No 'Fringements!