Woman was being threatened by an abusive ex and bought a taser for protection.
MA charged her saying that tasers didn’t exist at the time of the 2nd amendment, so she had no right to own one.
Enter the court:
“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”.[6] The term “bearable arms” was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any “”[w]eapo[n] of offence" or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]
Anything you take into your hands for defense is allowed under the 2nd amendment. So, no, you don’t have the right to a cruise missile or a tactical nuke, but if you can carry it, it’s yours.
So I can carry Sarin gas “for the purpose of offensive […] action”? How about a non-grandfathered automatic weapon? Hand grenades? MANPADS?
This ruling is nonsense, along with the expansion of the second to self-defense 15 years ago. We’ve banned the stuff that could support a rebellion and legalized the stuff that’s just good for murder.
Gas is banned by the Geneva convention, so no. Grenades are classified as “destructive devices”, so no.
Automatic weapons are fully allowed so long as you’re willing to do the paperwork and pay the tax. It’s not an easy process, and it’s SUPER expensive, but it can be done.
Who the fuck cares what the Geneva convention bans? That’s a nation-to-nation treaty. We won’t use this if you won’t, not “no one can ever use this”. And the very fact that you approve of “destructive devices” being banned but not handguns proves the whole damn point. The 2nd is about rebellion, but we let the government defang rebellion while playing to petty interpersonal fears. You don’t need a constitutional amendment to define the rules regarding fighting off robbers, you need it to define the rules for fighting off the government.
"the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right”
They’re politicians in black robes, they don’t define truth. You’re citing interpretation changes by an illegitimate court to rules written at the country’s birth that aren’t even old enough vote. The sooner people stop deluding themselves that they’re anything but another form of politician the better, but I’m sure you’ll pick and choose which rulings are the word of God and which are bullshit.
It’s not reverence, I’m telling you the way it is. You’re free to ignore reality if you’d like. The line of “money isn’t real, man!” people is over there -->
The Supreme Court specifically addressed that in 2016 in my favorite one of these cases because it didn’t initially seem to involve firearms:
Caetano v. Massachusetts - 2016
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
Woman was being threatened by an abusive ex and bought a taser for protection.
MA charged her saying that tasers didn’t exist at the time of the 2nd amendment, so she had no right to own one.
Enter the court:
“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”.[6] The term “bearable arms” was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any “”[w]eapo[n] of offence" or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]
Anything you take into your hands for defense is allowed under the 2nd amendment. So, no, you don’t have the right to a cruise missile or a tactical nuke, but if you can carry it, it’s yours.
So I can carry Sarin gas “for the purpose of offensive […] action”? How about a non-grandfathered automatic weapon? Hand grenades? MANPADS?
This ruling is nonsense, along with the expansion of the second to self-defense 15 years ago. We’ve banned the stuff that could support a rebellion and legalized the stuff that’s just good for murder.
Gas is banned by the Geneva convention, so no. Grenades are classified as “destructive devices”, so no.
Automatic weapons are fully allowed so long as you’re willing to do the paperwork and pay the tax. It’s not an easy process, and it’s SUPER expensive, but it can be done.
https://rocketffl.com/who-can-own-a-full-auto-machine-gun/
Who the fuck cares what the Geneva convention bans? That’s a nation-to-nation treaty. We won’t use this if you won’t, not “no one can ever use this”. And the very fact that you approve of “destructive devices” being banned but not handguns proves the whole damn point. The 2nd is about rebellion, but we let the government defang rebellion while playing to petty interpersonal fears. You don’t need a constitutional amendment to define the rules regarding fighting off robbers, you need it to define the rules for fighting off the government.
Not according to the Supreme Court and they are the ones who decide this stuff:
McDonald vs. City of Chicago - 2010
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
"the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right”
They’re politicians in black robes, they don’t define truth. You’re citing interpretation changes by an illegitimate court to rules written at the country’s birth that aren’t even old enough vote. The sooner people stop deluding themselves that they’re anything but another form of politician the better, but I’m sure you’ll pick and choose which rulings are the word of God and which are bullshit.
That’s the job of the Supreme Court, I’m sorry you disagree, but that doesn’t change the fact of the matter.
It could change if the court were to swing the other way, but it’s only been getting more conservative in my lifetime, not less.
What an incurious reverence of authority.
It’s not reverence, I’m telling you the way it is. You’re free to ignore reality if you’d like. The line of “money isn’t real, man!” people is over there -->