Isn't the right to keep and bear arms subject to interpretation?
I mean, I think most people would agree that Bill Gates shouldn't be allowed to own ICBM's, even though he could afford them. A butter knife in the right hands can be deadly. So who's to say what is an arm. What is OK to allow people to have?
Answers:
Arms have traditionally meant guns, i.e. pistols and rifles. Explosives and ICBM's would probably fall into the cateogry of "artillery" something not covered by the Sencond Amendment.
The Second Amendment references a "well regulated militia", which in th early days of the republic meant every able bodied white male over the age of (I believe) 16.
The argument is that since the military alone is not reserved the right bear arms, the people's right is absolute, if they're part of the militia. Since the fed really doesn't want militias anymore (they helped train legions of men to fight a war of secession in the 1860's), they backed off the militia requirement and just let any person of age (and without a prison record) to own a firearm.
Is that subject to interpretation? Sure it is. But then again, so is every other right we have. Just pick up a constitutional law book and you'll see we've been interpreting those rights from the beginning.
Neither Gates nor you nor I would be able to BEAR an ICBM, hence it is not among the ARMS the right to bear which is protected by the Second Amendment.
Next question..
Your question is silly on it's face and lacks intellectual merit.
All of it is up for complete interpretation - hence the Supreme Court. One thing is for sure - the government cannot not deny us that right. They can put on any restrictions and such to deter me from owning any sort of "arm", but they cannot say "No"!
Yes. It is subject to the interpretation of the US Supreme Court. It is interpreted by the usage of the term in 1791. Basically, it means "a firearm, such as a gun."
All constitutional rights are subject to interpretation, by the Supreme Court. They are also subject to change if the legislature can achieve a voting threshhold.
The assualt weapons ban is an example where constraints are applied to the right to bear arms.
Your question is interesting though. The founding fathers put this right in the Bill of Rights so that people could have the ability, if needed, to rebel against an unjust government. An ICBM is kind of like the musket of the 1790's, the latest advance in weaponry. Wouldn't then an ICBM be needed to rebel against repression against the current government?
And what about a car? It can be used a mighty powerful weapon also.
No it is not subject to interpretation. It is very clear.
There is nothing in it though to limit punishments for intentional misuse or illegal use of those arms.
Should we take away pencils from school children also? I carry a pencil lead next to my spine from a 3rd grade fight.
If you want to know which weapons should be banned ask: Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pho Phat, Qaddafi, disarming their citizens did wonders for the general safety of their people.
People don't go into battle with a butter knife but they do with guns. It speaks of guns not butter knives.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: