How do you define "arms"

[Corvette]

My family had this discussion last night.
What exactly are "arms".
I thought it might be interesting to get some opinions here.

In reference to the second amendment, the term "arms" is not defined.
How do *you* define the term "arms" when used in reference to the Second Amendment?
Handgun?  Shotgun? Machine Gun? Grenade launcher? Mini Gun?
Do you draw the line anywhere? If so, where?

[tracker]

You would have to go with what was available in 1791. I think they left it vague intentionally but that is just an opinion. "Bear Arms" would imply an element of portability, but they didn't have Stinger missiles then, either. You could really chase your tail around on this subject.

[Richard S]

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was the first decision of the United States Supreme Court directly to address the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. In that decision, the Court referred to arms as being weapons "of the kind in common use at the time." (Id. at 179.) The Miller Court also quoted with approval the following commentary from "The American Colonies In The 17th Century," Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII:

"The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former."

(Id. at 180.)

In United States v. Heller, 554 U. S. ____ (2008 ), the majority stated at page 55 of the slip opinion:

"Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U. S., at 179." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” [Citations omitted.]

Later in Heller, the majority stated at pages 57-58 of the slip opinion:

"It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."

[Corvette]

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was the first decision of the United States Supreme Court directly to address the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. In that decision, the Court referred to arms as being weapons "of the kind in common use at the time." (Id. at 179.) The Miller Court also quoted with approval the following commentary from "The American Colonies In The 17th Century," Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII:

"The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former."

(Id. at 180.)

In United States v. Heller, 554 U. S. ____ (2008 ), the majority stated at page 55 of the slip opinion:

"Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U. S., at 179." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” [Citations omitted.]

Later in Heller, the majority stated at pages 57-58 of the slip opinion:

"It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."

Based on that definition, would it be safe to conclude that modern "arms" such as semi-auto's, revolvers, AK's, SKS's, and virtually all modern weapons do not fall under the authors definition of "arms"?

[tracker]

If it is a slip opinion it is not a precedent; R9s are good to go. We'll have to talk about the Cheytac.

[Richard S]

Curt:

Miller dealt with a sawed-off shotgun transported in interstate commerce. I would argue that Miller's "common use at the time" standard, as approved in Heller, should embrace the modern semi-automatic weapons you describe. However, the fight goes on, and the gun-banners can be expected to chip away at the gains we have recently achieved.

As I have previously noted, the Second Amendment remains viable and will probably still be so during the limited number of years I have yet to enjoy. Those who fear and oppose it can be expected to continue their assault on its guarantees. The cause is fundamental to our democratic form of government, and the coming generation must be prepared to defend it or lose it. I just hope they choose to defend it.

During the course of my peripatetic career, I was witness to a certain military coup overseas in which one of the first things the new dictator did was to outlaw and confiscate all known civilian firearms. As a result, only the military, the police, the rebels, and the criminal gangs had weapons -- and the four groups were often intertwined. Meanwhile, the drugs and the diamonds flowed across borders, the "elephants" fought, and the "grass" suffered.

[P7Enigma]

...and the people probably went hungry

[Corvette]

Curt:

Miller dealt with a sawed-off shotgun transported in interstate commerce. I would argue that Miller's "common use at the time" standard, as approved in Heller, should embrace the modern semi-automatic weapons you describe. However, the fight goes on, and the gun-banners can be expected to chip away at the gains we have recently achieved.

As I have previously noted, the Second Amendment remains viable and will probably still be so during the limited number of years I have yet to enjoy. Those who fear and oppose it can be expected to continue their assault on its guarantees. The cause is fundamental to our democratic form of government, and the coming generation must be prepared to defend it or lose it. I just hope they choose to defend it.

During the course of my peripatetic career, I was witness to a certain military coup overseas in which one of the first things the new dictator did was to outlaw and confiscate all known civilian firearms. As a result, only the military, the police, the rebels, and the criminal gangs had weapons -- and the four groups were often intertwined. Meanwhile, the drugs and the diamonds flowed across borders, the "elephants" fought, and the "grass" suffered.

With all due respect, my question only had to do with the definition of "arms". It had nothing whatsoever to do with  dictators, drugs, military coups, or the confiscation of private  weapons.

1. Do you believe any private citizens of the United States, as protected by the Second Amendment, should have the right under that amendment, to own an unregistered machine gun or mini gun etc.?
2. Do you believe that there should be limits as to what can be owned by the private citizen?
  
Should the term "arms" (in reference to the Second Amendment) continue to be ambiguous, or does it need clarification?  

[tracker]

1. No
2. Yes

Leave it alone as it stands.

[Corvette]

1. No
2. Yes

Leave it alone as it stands.

I agree.

[Richard S]

1. No
2. Yes

Leave it alone as it stands.

I concur. Otherwise, in my opinion, those who would ban all civilian gun ownership will have a much easier argument to make.

---
And, by the way, I apologize if I strayed down the path of memory in that last post.

[kjtrains]

1. No
2. Yes

Leave it alone as it stands.

I do agree, as well.  Keep it simple.    

[yankee2500]

No for number one.
2. Do you believe that there should be limits as to what can be owned by the private citizen?

Limits if that means not owning a Light Anti Tank Weapon, mini gun, or Howitzer, but not limits like six hand guns, two rifles and one shotgun.

John
    

[Aglifter]

John Paul Jones started as a privateer, hired by Congress.  That meant he had a privately owned ship of war...  The BATFE doesn't allow us to own things, such as exploding cannon balls, which "Mad King George" did...  

There is no excuse for a bioweapon, in anyone's hands - those are pure "doomsday devices."

Nor do I agree w. permitting nukes - things which allow one man to wipe out whole countries are a bit much for private ownership...

I would loosen some of the chemical "weapons" standards - private people should be able to have larger amounts of tear gas, stun grenades, etc.  

There's no reason to restrict a machine gun, even less to restrict it to ones made prior to 1986.  Same w. howitzers, etc.  

For a society to be free, we must be armed, and able to defend ourselves - when the populace assures there's little crime on its own, there's little political justification for the abuses of the state.  

[kjtrains]

Well stated, Aglifter!