We can make laws against reckless gunfire because it directly goes against the principles the 2nd amendment is there to protect, not because the constitution is silent about it.
Similarly we can make laws against citizens owning a full auto machine gun because it is not necessary for the security of a free state, self defense or security.
Your basic weapons, or arms though are protected because they fit within all the criteria. I need to be able to protect my self, but I don't need a machine gun to do it. I own a gun to feel secure, but I am obviosly not contributing to the security of the state when I fire it off in a highly populated area.
Thats my take of it anyway.
Last edited by drz-400; 07-02-10 at 07:14 PM.
Strictly speaking, I think anything that can be and might be carried by a modern infantryman, which falls under the definition of a "small arm", ought to be considered protected for civilian possession under the 2A. Also any weapon used by any police department or federal agency as a personal weapon. Also any weapon suitable for self-defense, sport, hunting, or "any other lawful purpose".
As a compromise, I'm okay with the current law in my state: you have to have a Class III license to possess things like full-auto weapons, grenade launchers, and suchlike, and there are storage requirements and etc.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
as is the 200 dollar NFA fee
In fact the license requirements are as well
M16 rifles and HK MP5s ought to be sold under the same rules as currently apply to AR 15's and Glocks
explosive devices such as RPGs-now that bruises the concept of an individual infantry weapon so I might concede that the current Title II rules should apply
but if civilian police departments use a weapon, that should take it out of the Class III licensing arena
Law enforcement IMO could be thought of as a well regulated malitia (meaning they are trained), so I think if a citizen wants to have the same firepower they need to have similar qualifications. If they want a non-military gun just to protect themselves I don't think we should stop them.
Last edited by drz-400; 07-02-10 at 11:38 PM.
An interesting note, is that Article I Section VIII Clause XVI states that the federal government is responsible for arming the militias. Here's the full text of the clause.That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Under said clause, the federal government must buy every citizen a military grade weapon in the performance of their duties in the militia. The National Guard is not part of the militia and the Supreme Court has ruled that the National Guard functions as part of the federal military due to the dual oath of enlistment that members take. There hasn't been a Constitutional militia since the early 1900's.To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;