Does the 2nd protect access to weapons of war? That’s not the question.

There’s -no- question that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to own/use weapons of war – the well-regulated militia would be useless if the only weapons the people could own were unsuitable for service in said militia.
The question, then, is -- which weapons of war -does- the 2nd protect?

In Miller, the USSC held that to be protected by the 2nd, a firearm must be “in common use” as “part of the ordinary military equipment” which has some “reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well-regulated militia’.
Heller adjusted this to hold that “in common use” refers to firearms in private hands and in common use among the general citizenry, not sitting in the armories of the US military.
Caetano established threshold for “common use” at 200,00 units in private hands – and, arguably, suggested this number could be as small as 20,000.

With this in mind...
Which weapons of war does the 2nd Amendment --NOT-- protect access to, and why?

 

It's a shame that our fearless leaders are incapable of amending the constitution so that it is updated to today's standards.

We don't even have militia the way the constitution intended. And nukes should not be protected by the 2nd amendment.

 

Not seeing an answer to my question here.

 

If they actually interpreted the constitution as it is written. There isn't a weapon that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect from access by the militia.

 

I don't think there is 'constitutional' precedent ...but historically those weapons protected by the 2A are weapons that are suitable for self defense. Those weapons deemed unsuitable for self defense are weapons that are used to effect an area rather than a target. Indirect-fire, explosive munitions, chemical and biological weapons are not well suited to engaging a single target (such as an individual human), and are not particularly useful in self defense relative to their usefulness in offense.

I believe at the time of the writing of the 2A, it was fully intended that We The People would have access to and be trained in the use of such weapons as the founders understood did and eventually would exist. I also believe had the founders witnessed such weapons as VX gas, agent orange, Anthrax and nukes, they would have bothered to more clearly define 'arms' in the 2A.

And most certainly, upon the advent of these sorts of weapons of mass destruction, we should've immediately held a Consitutional Convention to amend the 2A to distinguish those bearable arms useful in self defense from weapons of mass destruction. What we did instead was allow the govt to make that distinction, and now (predictably) the govt wants to restrict everything that could be useful to a people resisting forceful oppression.

 

my belief is when you get to crew served weapons such as heavy machine guns, artillery such as mortars and cannons, and ordnance such as claymore mines or bombs, there are good arguments that protecting weapons that citizens normally keep and bear is not applicable. the reason why I, and many who are pretty much hard core second amendment advocates is that natural law is the underlying foundation for the bill of rights and our constitution and this was alluded to in the 150 or so year old Cruikshank decision where the second was noted as not coming from the constitution. The reference was to the natural right of self defense and weapons such as mortars, cannons, mines and so forth are not useful for self defense. Others claim that any arm that is bearable is covered. what we both agree is that common firearms such as the AR 15 and yes, the M4 Carbine (which is in common use my thousands of police departments -CIVILIAN police departments) are protected

 

Did Miller intend to imply that bank robbers had a right to own firearms that were part of the ordinary military equipment? Apparently not as the Supreme Court later cited Miller in Lewis in support of a ban on felons possessing all types of modern firearms.

In 2008, Heller cited Miller in support of its "in common use" rule. That was most likely to discourage challenges to the NFA. Critics pointed out that the logic of the rule was circular (a certain type of gun could be banned because it was banned) and that it ignored the issue of federalism.

 

according to three former clerks of Scalia who I know well-they questioned the "in common use" requirement because that meant the government could ban a new type of firearm that should be protected. All three noted that Scalia believed that when civilian law enforcement agencies used such a firearm or other arm-that meant it was in common use for lawful purposes

 

The answer is any weapon a militiaman might be reasonably expected to carry into battle.

In a modern scenario where the unorganized militia might be reasonable expected to augment the organized militia (in the event of a natural disaster or nationwide civil upheaval) the type of weapon and munitions carried is very individual. I'd say at a minimum the militiaman should possess 210 rounds for their battle rifle and at least 4 reloads of their sidearm.

The odds of that militiaman having to actually use those weapons are very low..and thats a good thing.

 

All these words, and you still managed to avoid the question.
I don't really wonder why.

 

Historically, militiamen were required to have individual weapons and not crew served weapons.

If you look at the sorts of weapons during the Middle Ages that free people were required to have at the ready in case they were called to militia duty, the list never included things like catapults and trebuchets.

So it can be reasonably said that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't cover crew-served weapons.


It has been proposed that militiamen were only required to have the sorts of weapons that are today labeled as small arms. If so, that would also exclude explosives and incendiaries.

I find this argument a bit less convincing than the crew-served exclusion. But I acknowledge that judges will be more likely to accept legalization of full-auto weapons if they are not also legalizing grenades and bazookas.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Does that include SWAT teams or just regular patrol officers?

 

i
know not but over 8000 surplus M 16 rifles are in state and local Ohio PDs and those are all civilian le os

 

Nukes aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment...lol.

You know that isn't true, so why do you keep saying it?

 

The 2nd Amendment applies to man portable weapons, along with its ammunition. Only man portable weapons can be beared. Am M2 machine gun isn't man portable, neither is a nuke. The smallest nuke I'm aware of weighs 300 pounds.

 

The constitution doesn't say, except nukes.

 

Freedom does not require "updating".

So have the government start organizing one.

They aren't.

The Second Amendment protects the people's right to keep and bear arms.

The people's right to keep and bear arms has never covered crew-served weapons.

Nukes are crew-served weapons.

 

The Constitution does say "bear arms". Nukes aren't bearable.

 

We actually do have the militia today exactly as it was intended then. Whats tragic is that so many people that speak on the militia are so poorly informed.

 

Thats the irony when people talk about wanting to bans because they are 'weapons of war'. The 2nd Amendment was written to specifically protected 'weapons of war'.

The definition of 'weapons of war' is so amazingly broad. Pretty much every type of weapon has seen common and practical use in war, to include revolvers, pistols, single shot weapons...even 22s.

 

We don't have leaders. We have representatives. And, they can't amend the Constitution. The Constitution can only be amended if 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the states vote to do so.

 

the dishonesty and constantly changing standards are what the anti gun movement is known for. what I love is the same people that say only hunting firearms are protected by the second are the same crowd who want to ban hunting

 

the people who claim we should support nukes under the second, don't think the second protects any arm

 

I never said representatives because they don't decide alone. I am aware of how it works. I said leaders to encapsulate all involved parties including presidential pressure to lobby for such amendments.

But I am not interested in arguing the semantics of language as it distracts from the actual argument which is that they failed to update the constitution the proper way and often hope the Supreme Court interprets language of things that does not fit with today's technology.

 

Yes, and the same clack want to restrict firearms to the military and police also want to defund police. They basically, want to remove the humans right to self defense.

 

The Constitution doesn't need updating. The language of the Constitution fits today's technology just fine.