Thought Exercise
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine over some beer about guns. He’s definitely pro-gun but not a gun guy. And one point he made was that weapons protected by the constitution should be weapons that can be used for defensive purposes. As such, M-16s fit the bill. But brass knuckles or a garrote would not be. Interesting point, I thought. Though he seemed perplexed when I said that sometimes a rocket launcher could be a defensive weapon if you’re under attack by a vehicle of some sort.
Thoughts?
July 26th, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Why couldn’t brass knuckles be used for defense? especially as a force multiplier for a small person.
As for the rocket launcher, the first thing that came to mind was “Wait a minute, wait a minute. What have we here, gentlemen? The police have themselves an RV. Southeast corner.!”
July 26th, 2013 at 7:35 pm
Ditto on the brass knuckles and rocket launcher. The garotte is an executioner’s tool, as far as I know, in real life, with the victim being tied up or held by a couple of guys while he’s being strangled.
July 26th, 2013 at 7:41 pm
If the government insists it has the right to kill me with a drone, I insist on the right to own a Stinger.
July 26th, 2013 at 7:48 pm
The best defense is a good offense. More to the point, anything can be used as a defensive weapon so I’m not sure there’s a real distinction to be made. Whips and garrotes are more or less pieces of rope. Can we say that a piece of rope is purely offensive in nature?
July 26th, 2013 at 7:58 pm
I’ve always thought the second amendment should protect the right to keep and bear at least the arms found in a contemporary infantry unit.
July 26th, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Garottes and brass knuckles were traditionally used by soldiers for sentry removal and trench fighting so they’d clear under the “militia” concept. In a more practical sense as noted brass knuckles are as able to be used defensively as offensively, it is the intent that matters.
Also as noted, a garotte is a piece of string with handles. Sure you could say it isn’t much -use- for defense, but without ill-intent on the possessor/user why should we care any more than we care about anything that could be used for evil?
In any event those things were banned not due to documented problems but because they look scary in movies and politicians want to seem tough on crime, especially gang-type movie crime, especially minority gang-type movie crime.
July 26th, 2013 at 8:13 pm
Is this not a version of the antis’ argument regarding possession rather than use?
Thorny issue, that, because there should be some sort of line drawn somewhere; it’s not reasonable, or at least it appears to not be reasonable, to authorize personal possession of thermonuclear weapons.
But….how about conventionally-fueled aircraft carriers and diesel-electric submarines? Privateers – privately owned ships operating under Letters of Marque – were a not insignificant component in the Revolution.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms….” doesn’t specify what arms, so it’s reasonable to presume whatever restrictions which constitute “reasonable restrictions” are founded not in type but in degree; that’s where the argument is.
July 26th, 2013 at 8:43 pm
Defense vs offense is a legal concept, not a technological concept. Anything that can be used for defense can be used for offense and vice-verse. As some of the posters above have noted, it is the infantry weapons that are probably protected by the 2nd. But they can be used for both defense and offense.
July 26th, 2013 at 8:51 pm
Anything on the table of equipment for a rifle squad should certainly be protected by the 2A. That would include fighting knives, M16s, M203 grenade launchers, optics suitable for squad designated marksmen, and the SAW.
Indeed, I’d argue that anything on the TO&E for a platoon (adding medium machine guns) should also be strongly protected for individual acquisition.
Communities often raised an entire company of infantry supervised by a Captain, so anything on the TO&E for an infantry company should be protected to some degree… perhaps “intermediate scrutiny” as opposed to stricter review. Typical company level arms would include mortars and anti-tank weapons. Heavy machine guns and sniper equipment would also likely be included. They would certainly include anything in a SWAT team’s inventory!
I would also include other weapons systems typically commanded by company grade officers. That would include light armored vehicles, patrol vessels, helicoptors, light aircraft, and so on.
The purpose of the 2A is to ensure that the People can raise effective militias for individual and communal self defense with modern arms. You have to look at what is in common usage in the company-level TO&E, I think.
July 26th, 2013 at 9:07 pm
I’ve seen it suggested that the word “bear” should not be read to be a dead letter and that it means that you should be able to carry the arms that are protected. That would eliminate crew served weapons such as mortars, heavy machine guns, and thermonuclear weapons. It would not exclude an M4 or M203. I’m not sure that analysis is right, but then again I’m not sure it is wrong either.
July 26th, 2013 at 9:08 pm
I haven’t had the opportunity to use my rocket launchers yet… so I can’t give a fully informed opinion yet…
Dann in Ohio
July 26th, 2013 at 9:12 pm
Wasn’t the garrote initially used as a cheese cutter that was then adopted by others as a weapon?
July 26th, 2013 at 9:48 pm
The way I read it, it was a bowstring used by the Mongolic-Turkic people to execute people whose blood it was forbidden to spill. The Spanish used it as late as the 18th century for executions. The infamous thugees of India used scarves and worked in teams of three, two holders and a strangler. In WWI and WWII, soldiers preferred a sharp blow to the base of the skull with their entrenching tool for sentry removal. Whatever.
July 26th, 2013 at 9:48 pm
me,
Are you aware that the arms English soldiers and marines were sent to Concord to confiscate were crew-served weapons: to wit, cannon and shot? The modern-day equivalents of the weapons American colonists went to war rather than surrender are artillery pieces.
And yes, I believe any citizen or group of citizens should be able to own working artillery pieces–or tanks, or fighter jets, or any other arms short of nuclear weapons.
July 26th, 2013 at 9:56 pm
NK, a garrote is both the executioner’s tool and a wire with handles on the end. The latter being used to sneak up behind someone and choke them.
July 26th, 2013 at 10:28 pm
The “why do you need” question is NOT even open for discussion from those in the government. The question is for them, namely, “by what authority and from which delegated power do you do anything?!” The Federal Government has NO delegated power to in any way violate or infringe what the people choose for their own defense. The Federal Government may do NOTHING for which it has NO delegated powers (10th Amendment) It’s ONLY delegated power is for “governing such part of the militia as may be EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE of the United States” (Article I, Section 8:16)
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…” – Tench Coxe 1788
July 26th, 2013 at 10:35 pm
Chuck Norris could be attacked on the street and respond with blocks and punches, which while technically defensive and offensive, are all performed in self defense. Even a garrote can be used in self defense, if the target has offensive plans. The distinction is not in the weapon, it is in the minds and intentions of the people involved.
I remember a little old lady came in to the hardware store to buy some rope specifically to make a garrote. Her father had shown her how. She was going to fly somewhere after September 11th, 2001, and she said that no hijacker was going to take her plane without a fight. Clearly, (unless she was bullshitting us) her intent was defensive, because who would choose that weapon to take control of a plane? It’s too slow, and limited to one person at a time.
July 26th, 2013 at 11:07 pm
I want to know what restrictions they had for buying a “ship of the line”?
July 26th, 2013 at 11:36 pm
Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution grants congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal. The very existence of this power presupposes that ships capable of waging war (or at the very least their armaments) would be in civilian hands. If a civilian can own a warship, why can’t they own a tank, or a fighter/bomber, or a SAM battery? I’d settle for a mortar.
July 26th, 2013 at 11:45 pm
Hmmm…
Landmines are a defensive weapon, right? It’s hard to think of a way they could be used in a strictly offensive manner.
I like the way your friend thinks. Wonder if he’d be more open to anti-tank mines than a rocket launcher.
July 27th, 2013 at 12:02 am
Mariner, are you sure about that? I thought the red coats were after the gunpowder.
July 27th, 2013 at 2:40 am
In American legal tradition, knives of a certain size are considered ‘offensive weapons’. In many states a ccw allows you a pistol, but you can be arrested for carrying a Bowie. Yeah, weird. This is covered every so often in the knife magazines.
July 27th, 2013 at 4:26 am
Claymores.
July 27th, 2013 at 7:38 am
Defense only applies to berms, walls, running shoes…..well, you see where I’m coming from. As soon as a person, or animal for that matter, strikes out, even in response to an attacker, offense is being conducted. So any attack enhancers (guns, knives, etc) are weapons and the other party finds them quite offensive. Hopefully.
July 27th, 2013 at 8:28 am
Couple things:
1) The Constitution authorized Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal. You know, to people who owned warships. That kind of knocks the “bear” argument into a cocked hat.
2) Conversely, the Miller decision hinged on whether or not a cut-down side-by-side fowling piece was “any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” A sawed-off double-barrel might not be, but an M249 SAW sure as hell is. The anti-gun crowd really wants to avoid Miller if they know what’s good for them.
July 27th, 2013 at 8:37 am
OH MY GAWD! You are talking about GUNZ while drinkin BEER? Doncha no that GUNZ and alcohol dont MIX!
July 27th, 2013 at 8:39 am
Tam, just because war ships were allowed in private hands does not mean they were protected by the second amendment. Congress has the power to restrict lots of things that are allowed. To give an absurd example eighteen wheelers are allowed, but under its commerce clause power Congress could limit trucks to 50,000 pounds and 10 wheels.
July 27th, 2013 at 8:44 am
Other covered it, but brass knuckles can be plenty defensive, but if you carry them you are probably not worried about “defense”. Not the kind of thing a person would normally turn to. But then there was that guy who defended himself with a sword…
In a pinch you use what you got. I once found myself with a dead car in a bad place and had to walk to a subway station. Stopped at the corner gas station and bought some D-cell batteries that filled the hand nicely. Call it the ‘power punch’.
That was a lot of years ago and I was hoping the car would be gone when I got back. No such luck. I was so poor back then not even the hood would take my car.
July 27th, 2013 at 9:08 am
While a rocket launcher may face legal issues, nobody has said anything about a black powder cannon firing a sabot projectile.
July 27th, 2013 at 9:58 am
Dear Uncle and Your Readers,
First, awesome question.
Next, to review, the 2nd amendment says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So, …
There is no restriction on any “Arms” for the people that includes M-16 rifles, various machine guns, nuclear warheads, fighter aircraft, artillery pieces, chemical weapons, knives, garrots, or biological weapons
Of course, …
There is now case law, such as U.S. vs. Miller in which “[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”
Since Militia are formed to resist occupations by foreign forces, one of its duties. Any military weapon, past, present or future, would be allowable so the Militia could effectively resist.
So, …
In my opinion, garrotes and brass knuckles are covered, since they have been used by the military. As are your rocket launchers
As a side note, …
If the anti-freedom (anti-gunnies) folks are willing to compromise, I’ll be willing to halt my attempts to regain my constitutional right to atomic bombs, weaponized Ebola, and Mustard Gas for their shutting up about everything else.
Of course, that’s not going to happen.
So, …
The fight continues to regain my freedoms
Peace, Someone You Know
July 27th, 2013 at 10:00 am
Dear Uncle and Your Readers,
Sorry!
“Our” Freedoms
Peace, Someone You KLnow
July 27th, 2013 at 1:10 pm
It’s worth noting that even if nukes were “unregulated” in terms of purchase, they would still be expensive, and they do objectively require containment, maintenance and security in both responsible possession and transport.
Anyway, all rights stop at the other guy’s nose and property line. Cost, zoning and practical liability concerns are sufficient regulation for the aircraft carrier, tank, fighter jet, nuke arguments ad absurdum.
July 27th, 2013 at 1:19 pm
This should be permalinked on all gun blogs: http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
July 27th, 2013 at 9:45 pm
Many people operate under the assumption that “rights stop at the other person’s nose”.
Not so. Rights, by definition, never “stop”.
They do, sometimes, interact.
But you have no “right” to restrict my rights, just as I have none to restrict yours.
Take – as one example – the use of fisticuffs or other acts using weapons. I have a right to decide I wish to interject my opinions. Fortunately, you have a right to refuse my interjection, and if need be, to punish me for the attempt.
That is the underpinning of self-defense.
Which does not grant a right to take away my rights.
Logically speaking, that is. But then, the available evidence demonstrates conclusively that liberals, left-leaners, the brainwashed, those who cannot think for themselves, and the majority of our politicians, lawyers, and judges, plus many on the right, are all ruled by their or someone else’s emotions. Logic, nad rational thinking, appears to be a foreign concept to the vocal minority who are acting in opposition to the Law Of the Land.
Rights are NOT Privileges!
July 28th, 2013 at 7:17 am
I’d like to think that citizens owning RPG’s would give the SWAT culture pause on driving and APC up to/into peoples houses as part of a “dynamic entry” but I think it would just mean they’d pound the place flat first in the name of “officer safety.”
July 28th, 2013 at 10:31 am
Having actually used brass knuckles in self defense, I’d have to say he’s dead wrong. Any weapon that can be used offensively can be used defensively, even a garrote. After all, the only difference between offensive violence and defensive violence is the intent and motivation, not the physical mechanics.
July 28th, 2013 at 11:53 am
Going from brass knuckles to individual guns to nuclear weapons glosses over some real issues from a constitutional standpoint.
The difference between an M4 and, say, a nuke is that one is designed to be used as a personal defensive weapon against criminals and the occasional tyrant. A nuclear arm (or for that matter, grenades, ebola and other “mass casualty” devices) are not there to protect you from individual attackers. They are less discriminate (note I said “less” as I know grenades can be aimed).
Whereas bullets fired from a rifle are aimed (we hope) at some individual miscreant, a nuke is a weapon of offense designed specifically to inflict mass casualties in a rather indiscriminate fashion.
I am glossing over a lot here, but the furthest you could potentially stretch Heller/McDonald is to equalize the weapons between the lawful civilian population and the lawful civilian population that happens to be a sworn law enforcement officer. There is nothing in the constitution that places LEOs above any other citizen, though constant erosion of citizen rights have basically done the same. They are a standing army/militia and should be roughly equivalent to the citizen population in their use of arms.
Could it be stretched to federal infantry weapons? Maybe, but I don’t think that would happen under the decisions we have now.
July 28th, 2013 at 7:04 pm
And the Constitution ONLY allows the Federal Government delegated power for “governing such part of the militia as may be EMPLOYED in the service of the United States.” Therefore it has NO authority over citizens and their keeping and carrying of arms EXCEPT for those while they are EMPLOYED by it.
July 28th, 2013 at 8:01 pm
A way way long time ago (in blog-years, a previous epoch, I think) Fran Porretto (back when he was writing at Eternity Road, wrote a piece on that. I’m sure I have it bookmarked, but findind anything in that heaping pile is well-nigh impossible. Anyways, typical well-done piece by Fran. IIRC, it came down to weapons which could be individually targeted, vs. area munitions. Thus, biological, nuclear, MOAB, etc. would not be covered.
Michael Z. Williamson isn’t so conservative.
Since the tech. of warfare is always evolving and improving, I don’t know that we can ever come up with any better definition than that supplied by Trench Cox: “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments,
but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
I think a fully-loaded Apache is an implement of the soldier. I mean, they got people flying them eh? I want one.
July 29th, 2013 at 8:38 am
Defensive weapon: Anything and everything I can get my hands on or otherwise access to stop a real or perceived threat. That oughta cover it.
July 29th, 2013 at 9:59 am
The issue is the definition of the word “arms”.
In 18th Century terminology, “a stand of arms” was a full basic combat kit (no uniform, footwear, campaign equippage such as haversacks and water bottles, etc.) that would be issued an individual soldier for his personal use. In other words, he could show up buck naked, be handed a “stand of arms” and be somewhat combat effective. (Anyone remember the pics of guys in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting in skivvies, body armor, webbing, and rifle?)
For an infantryman (at various times and units), “arms” would be cartridge box, firelock (shoulder arm), and siderarms (pistols, bayonets, and/or swords). (Given universal individual issue these days, modern body armor and helmet would reasonably fall under the term “arms”.)
For a cavalryman (or “dragoon”), that would include carbines (and other similar short firelocks) and sidearms (pistols, bayonets, and/or swords). when pistols were involved, they were generally in multiples (reloading from the saddle in battle sucks). It may (depending on timme, place, and unit) have included the tack. It NEVER would have included the horse (although US militia regs said that units that wished to be mustered and counted as mounted had to provide their own initial horses).
The arms of an artilleryman were the weapons he used to protect himself and the piece, and were similar to either the infantryman or the cavalryman (depending on time, place, and unit): a firelock (either a full sized one, or more usually carbines and other similar short firelocks) and sidearms (pistols, bayonets, and/or swords).
Cannons and other crew served weapons were not “arms” — they were “ordnance”. Yes, that DID include the grenade launchers and wall guns. Cannons had arms (the tools to service the piece, but not the piece itself – and they “belonged” to the gun, not any particular member of the crew), but were not considered the individual equipment of any particular soldier.
Both “arms” and “ordnance” were included in the larger calss of “munitions” — which meant ANY military-oriented supplies.
The fact that 18th Century Americans were allowed to own ordnance merely indicates that they were not prohibited from owning ordnance — it no more means that they were (and are) protected by the Second Amendment than the fact that there is no prohibition on blue suede shoes means they are covered by the Second amendment.
Ordnance may have Constitutional protections (I would argue they do, under the 9th and 109th Amendments; just not necessarily as strong as the 2nd Amendment’s rather absolutist protection).
M203 Grenade launchers are NOT “arms” in the 18th Century — they are “ordnance”. This is borne out by the fact that in every single military force I am aware of, if the grenadier takes a hit, he swaps weapons (or at least passes over the GL if it’s readily detatchable) before beong evactuated.
Support machineguns are generally treated the same way — if the SAW gunner goes down, the squad keeps the SAW in action, even at the cost of rifles. Certainly for GPMGs that are assigned as MG teams. (I would say that LMGs like the SAW, BAR, and Bren are “on the bubble” — you could make a case either way. I would suggest drawing the line at “is it normally considered crew served?”, or anything normally fired from a tripod or pintle mount. Sniper rifles, however, despite the fact that snipers generally work in pairs and often swap roles and rifles during a mission, ARE individual “arms”.)
Disposable rocket launchers (LAW, M138 “AT4”, etc.) would be “munitions” — they are issued to individual soldiers as rounds of ammunition, not as weapons. So they (like grenades) are not “arms”, either.
July 29th, 2013 at 10:09 am
Sorry for the typos. Browser and other email kept fighting for domination. . .
July 29th, 2013 at 11:15 am
I can’t believe I am the first to ask… Which Beer?
As for the minuitia of what is alowed and what is prohibited; I believe it leads to death by a thousand cuts.
Also, which beer?
July 29th, 2013 at 11:58 am
Check this post out: http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/nuclear-weapons-in-libertarianism/
It has a very consistent line of thinking to it.
July 29th, 2013 at 12:40 pm
apologies to your friend, but the only pure defensive personal and bearable weapon I can think of is a land mine.
July 29th, 2013 at 7:33 pm
The second amendment contains no nuance, qualifiers, carve-outs or exceptions.
U.S. verses Miller does not define the second amendment, simply because the second amendment defines the second amendment. Miller is just an opinion piece, based on assertions made in a lower court and crafted in the absence of the accused and without any defense whatsoever. They found a man guilty of a “gun crime” in a nation that, by definition, was to have no such thing as a gun crime, and so by 1934, the fundamental transformation of America had been made. No one revolted.
It’s very simple; the power is to reside in the people. It is our country, not the government’s country. They (ostensibly) work for us. We don’t work for them. Of course though, in this enlightened age no one understands a bit of it, therefore we’re having this conversation now whereas the matter was completely settled in 1791.