Who has argued otherwise?You see, there does have to be limits to the right to bear arms argument.
All rights have a inherent limit to them; said limits define the boundaries of those rights. Things outside a paticular right do not fall under the protection affordrd to that right becasue, well, they arent part of the right.
For isntance, the 2nd protects the right to "arms". Weapons that do not fall under the definition of "arms" are not protected by the 2nd, just as speech that does not qualify as "free speech" does not fall under protection of the 1st.
Miller states, in effect, that for a weapon toi qualfy for protection under the sceond -- that is, to fall under the defintion of 'arms" -- it must be 'part of the ordinary military equpiment' that is 'in common use at the time' and that has some 'reasonable relationship to the efficacy of the militia'.
As noted before, and as has been unaddressed by you, this covers any class of firearm you care to mention.
See above. As stated before, whatever the upper limit, it covers all firearms.What weapons do not fall under the definition of arms?
Last edited by Goobieman; 01-22-10 at 01:40 PM.
A good thing to add, in any law regarding things that could potentially be dangerous, is--"in a safe and prudent manner"
"Don't be particular bout nothin, but the company you keep"
The real limit is 'the efficacy of the militia'. The militia, given its historical and legal role, has little use for many of the things the standing military uses. Tanks, aircraft, SPARTY, heavy artillery, battlefield missles, and any sort of strategic weapon would not be included.
Essentially, if you can find it in the TO&E of a Ranger company, the 2nd covers it.
But, as I said -- it CLEARLY covers all firearms, and as such, any discussion beyond that is meaningless.