Do You Have a Right To Use Electrical Weapons?

An anonymous reader writes: David Cravets points out a growing debate in U.S. constitutional law: does the second amendment grant the same rights regarding electrical weapons as it does for traditional firearms? A Massachusetts ban on private ownership of stun-guns is being considered by the Supreme Court, and it's unclear whether such ownership has constitutional protection. The state's top court didn't think so: "... although modern handguns were not in common use at the time of enactment of the Second Amendment, their basic function has not changed: many are readily adaptable to military use in the same way that their predecessors were used prior to the enactment. A stun gun, by contrast, is a thoroughly modern invention (PDF). Even were we to view stun guns through a contemporary lens for purposes of our analysis, there is nothing in the record to suggest that they are readily adaptable to use in the military." The petitioner is asking the court (PDF) to clarify that the Second Amendment covers non-lethal weapons used for self-defense. Constitutional law expert Eugene Volokh agrees: "Some people have religious or ethical compunctions about killing. ... Some adherents to these beliefs may therefore conclude that fairly effective non-deadly defensive tools are preferable to deadly tools."

Comments

Yes

[EmagGeek]

The Constitution does not say "firearms." It says "arms."

"Arms" include firearms, electrical weapons, slingshots, bows and arrows, and any other sort of weapon.

Re:Yes

[Adriax]

I wonder if concealed carry permits cover broadswords?

Re:Yes

[digsbo]

Yes. Further, the point of the 2nd amendment was to equip the population to throw off tyranny. Any and all arms effective for that purpose seem covered by intent. Even ordnance, which was provided by private owners to fight the British. The intent being, specifically, to be able to fight a government.

Re:Yes

[msauve]

Is that a broadsword concealed in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

Re:Yes

[gurps_npc]

Totally correct.

I would even go so far as to point out that traditionally, the legal system has treated tasers as they do guns, especially the ones that fire darts (some use gunpowder to launch the darts.)

The right to bear arms must include any weapon, otherwise we are just asking for future technology to negate our constitutional rights.

Just as the right to free speech also applies to TV, Radio and the internet, the right to bear arms includes all reasonable weapons designed to replace guns.

Re:Yes

[MondoGordo]

To split a hair ... I own my house ... "Mister" is a minor title. and there is definitely a deed for my house which effectively makes me a deeded minor titled land holder... so you're OK with me owning "ordinance" ?

Re:Yes

[cayenne8]

If the Police can have it....then so should we the citizenry....

Re:Yes

[Nidi62]

To split a hair ... I own my house ... "Mister" is a minor title. and there is definitely a deed for my house which effectively makes me a deeded minor titled land holder... so you're OK with me owning "ordinance" ?

My college roommate has a small cannon sitting in his living room. Owning ordnance in the US is legal, you just can't own explosive projectiles.

Re:Yes

[FranTaylor]

If the Police can have it....then so should we the citizenry....

you mean the ability to murder without consequence?

Re:Yes

[nyet]

Still haven't read US v Miller yet, I see.

Re: Yes

[C0R1D4N]

Artillery is ordnance not arms. Explosives were not considered personal arms by the framers.

Re:Yes

[ShanghaiBill]

so according to you, individuals should be able to purchase and use nuclear weapons without a permit

Sure, as long as they pass a background check, and don't remove the serial numbers. Of course, the background check could be waived if they are just buying a small tactical nuke at a gun show.

Re:Yes

[nyet]

Considering the responses we're seeing from most people here ("omg well regulated"), discussing the nuances and legalities of US v Miller with them is like discussing quantum electrodynamics with somebody who has barely mastered arithmetic.

Re:Yes

[khasim]

You're on the wrong point.

But even there-- how much regulation is "well regulated" without shading into the "abridging" region?

"Well regulated" means "trained" or "skilled" in that context at that time. The SCOTUS has already ruled on that.

And "militia" means most male citizens (between certain ages).

But neither of those are an issue because the last part says:

... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And the SCOTUS has also ruled on who "the people" are in that context.

Re:Yes

[blue9steel]

The structure of the sentence doesn't specify militia membership as a pre-condition for keeping and bearing arms. It merely implies that a well regulated militia requires arms, that militias are composed of citizens and thus grants citizens the right to bear arms, implying that they thereby would be able to join together into a militia if they so chose.

Re:Yes

[FranTaylor]

the supreme court could rule tomorrow that "well regulated" means "with mustard and mayonaisse"

Re:Yes

[unrtst]

The intent of second amendment was never to give citizens the power to overthrow the legitimate government.

I don't believe that is entirely clear.

"it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ...
"... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." ... seems there are some strong indications that they would want the citizens to be able to do so if needed.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's not what the 2nd amendment says. It says, simply, "arms". It is not specific or restrictive about the type or scope or feasibility or safety of said armaments.

US citizens have the right to keep (own and store) and bear (carry and use) arms (of any and all varieties, see also: 10th amendment). Any illegal actions that they perform with those tools of destruction is still, by definition, illegal and will bring the necessary punishment upon them. Any legal actions that they perform with those tools of destruction (possibly as judged by the survivors of said destruction) will not bring punishment.

Law is an inherently reactive, not proactive, thing. For as long as you can't read minds perfectly and in real-time, you cannot apply law proactively within the bounds of justice. Also, things don't cause harm, people do. To preemptively punish for an action that has not yet been performed or for possession of a thing that has not been used to cause harm is to institute tyranny. And that is the spirit of the 2nd amendment.

Re: Yes

[amicusNYCL]

Right, because when someone breaks into my house nothing gets them out quicker than lighting the entire thing on fire.

Re:Yes

[MBGMorden]

I work for a municipality (and actually, on the property tax software). If you don't pay your taxes (for several years - a tax auction doesn't occur for a 1-year delinquent property) it is forcibly sold at auction . . . and you get the proceeds - after the taxes are taken out.

And even then you still have a year to reclaim your property from the buyer as long as you can pay the taxes plus 3% of whatever their bid for the property was.

Don't confuse the concept of ownership with things having requirements. You live in a modern society - we collect property taxes (or at least some places do), and we have to have a means to get people to pay those taxes. If we didn't, no one would bother.

Re:Yes

[Pfhorrest]

1. If the police can have it, then so should we the citizenry.

2. We the citizenry should not have the ability to murder without consequence.

Therefore:
3. The police can't have that ability either.
(by modus tollens)

That first premise is actually remarkably useful and would in fact, if applied in practice, produce a police force entirely compatible with anarchism.

Re:Yes

[bondsbw]

if applied in practice, produce a police force entirely compatible with anarchism.

But only guaranteed if someone were to enforce your rule #1... which of course would be incompatible with anarchism.

Re:Yes

[HornWumpus]

Iran will be offering great discounts soon.

Re:Yes

[Rainbow Nerds]

I don't think you understand the second amendment. The ability of the government to place reasonable restrictions on arms doesn't come from the "well-regulated militia" part of the second amendment. There have to be some restrictions on freedom to prevent anarchy, which itself is contrary to freedom. Reasonable restrictions on second amendment freedoms, or that of any other amendment, must pass strict scrutiny. There are three components to this:

• 1) There must be a compelling state interest in the restrictions, to achieve a particular goal.
• 2) The restrictions must be narrowly tailored to achieve that particular goal rather than being overly broad.
• 3) It must be the least restrictive means to achieve that goal.

The authors of the Bill of Rights believed that a standing army was contrary to freedom. Instead, militia would have a key role in defending the United States from attack from external or foreign powers while a national army was assembled to defend the country. In practice, it is necessary to have some standing army, especially as warfare has advanced technologically. However, militia still have a role, both in the form of organized and well-regulated citizens militias and state militias such as the national guard. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution describes the federal government's powers in organizing and maintaining a military in addition to their interactions with militia.

The authors of the second amendment also noted that European countries that banned arms tended to be less free than those that permitted citizens to have arms. Furthermore, and somewhat related is the ability to use arms to protect against tyranny. The second amendment clearly goes beyond supporting the right of citizens to organize militia, though it specifically mentions that the existence of such militia requires the right to keep and bear arms. This is hardly the only reason for the right to keep and bear arms, and certainly discussions as the Bill of Rights was being constructed demonstrate the intent.

Also, "the right of the people" occurs specifically in the first and fourth amendments. In the contexts of those amendments, especially the fourth, it is clear that this language refers to an individual right. With respect to the first amendment right to peaceably assemble, it wouldn't make sense to say that the whole group would have that right but individuals within could still have that right denied. This part of the first amendment also references the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. While assembly is done as a group and petitioning is typically something that is done with multiple signatories, there is still an individual right to participate in such things and the first amendment doesn't make sense if this is interpreted differently. Additionally, the right to petition protects the right to contact government officials, to lobby, and even to go to court if necessary. This part of the Constitution is what allows individuals and groups to sue the government if their rights are being violated. The fourth amendment definitely is an individual right to be free from illegal search and seizure. It doesn't make sense at all that a collective right to be free from such things would exist, but the government could still conduct illegal searches and seizures against individuals. This sort of reasoning was noted by Justice Scalia when he wrote the majority opinion in DC v. Heller, which specifically dealt with the second amendment. Even the dissenting opinions written by Justices Stevens and Breyer agreed that an individual right exists, though Stevens argued it only exists in the context of participation with a militia. It isn't in question whether it's an individual right.

The second amendment is an individual right, not a collective right limited to well-regulated militia. The Supreme Court has ruled on this. The restrictions on freedom in this case don't come from the "well-regulated militia" clause, but from strict scrutiny and the obvious truth

Re:Yes

[roc97007]

if applied in practice, produce a police force entirely compatible with anarchism.

But only guaranteed if someone were to enforce your rule #1... which of course would be incompatible with anarchism.

Hence the flaw in many arguments for various non-centralized forms of government. If the rules aren't enforced, they're likely to forcibly change. If they're enforced by some central authority, the government is no longer what you said it was.

My favorite example was the young woman interviewed during Occupy Wall Street, who said we should all abandon money and civilization and go back to being an agrarian society. When it was pointed out to her that such a decision would cause a massive die-off of American citizens, her response was "well, people die."

Ok, let's look at that for a minute, sweetness. You and your colorful friends develop an agrarian society somewhere, and let's say you're actually successful, in that you can adequately and sustainably feed all of your members with a little left over.

Then, one day a bunch of hungry brutes with guns arrive, and suddenly you find that the survivors in your little community are working for the brute squad, and life isn't nearly as nice. What are you gonna do about it? "Mike check!"

Re:Yes

[Rainbow Nerds]

That's not accurate. The purpose of the militia is described in Article 1, Section 8. The authors of the Constitution wanted to limit the ability of the government to maintain a standing army during peacetime, but they recognized there would be a need to defend the country quickly if attacked by a foreign or external power. The militia fill that role. They felt that a standing army during peacetime was contrary to freedom. The second amendment points out that it's only possible to achieve the goal of a well-regulated militia if the people have the right to keep and bear arms. It states the preference for militia rather than a standing army because the former was deemed more consistent with a free society. It doesn't state that participation in a militia is a prerequisite for possessing the individual right to bear arms. And yes, it's an individual right, regardless of scope. The ability to regulate arms doesn't come from the "well-regulated militia" clause, but from the understanding that absolute individual freedom results in anarchy rather than a truly free society. Restrictions of Constitutional freedoms are permitted when they pass the strict scrutiny tests. This is what defines the scope of the freedom, not the "well-regulated militia" clause.

Re:Yes

[CrankyFool]

Actually, there is such a thing as an AR-14 -- it's just so incredibly rare most people think it doesn't exist.

See http://www.thefirearmblog.com/... for one interesting article on it.

(But I agree, the original poster probably meant AR-15)

Re:Yes

[CrimsonAvenger]

It also specifically mentions "a well regulated militia" but most gun rights advocates conveniently forget that part.

Never read the Militia Act, I see.

Hint: The Militia Act defines the Militia. The definition is basically "every adult male in the USA".

Which makes me a member, and probably the overwhelming majority of /. members as well.

Note that later laws regarding women in the Military could be used to argue that every adult female is also a member of the militia. Which would make my wife, my daughter, and my mother members as well.

And you don't want to be the target when my Mom shoots. Better shot than my Dad, who was Regular Army for 20+ years....

Note, however, that the "well regulated militia" (as an aside, "well regulated" meant something different then than it does now - "regulated" was a verbing of "regular") was a REASON for the granting of the Right. It wasn't a requirement for the Right to exist.

Re:Yes

[afxgrin]

You do realize that anarchism is defined loosely enough to be quite inclusive of varying degrees of social control? The most anarchic anarchist society would end in mob rule, but few anarchists want that. Because of this you end up with a broad spectrum of people in the definition of 'anarchists'; those that want more municipal level communist elements to those who advocate strongly for primitivism, and also the "American" libertarians/AnCaps.

To my understanding, the policing model most compatible with "anarchism" would involve community selected individuals to be members of the police force. How practical of a model this might be is completely up for debate. The AnCaps would argue whoever has the money to pay for police deserve police...? Something like that.

Re:Yes

[swillden]

If Interstate Commerce was redefined, it was done a long time ago, during the New Deal. And then there's Lopez v Gonzalez. But that's not a redefinition of the sort FranTaylor was claiming, just a stretching.

With respect to the ACA, I'm not sure what you're talking about, though. SCOTUS ruled that the ACA could not be justified under the Commerce Clause. They upheld it as a legitimate exercise of Congress' power to tax.

Re:Yes

[roc97007]

I think we're drifting from the point a little bit. It's not about playing conqueror. It's about wanting or needing someone else's resources. The overall point is that going back to an agrarian society doesn't mean the people who are successful at growing crops will have food and everyone else is just going to sit at home and die. What Sweetness doesn't realize is that those hungry people are going to take their stuff. And no amount of group standing in a circle and chanting is going to change that.

What usually happens is that some group of hungry people get organized, weaponize, and then take over. But this isn't necessarily about an organized take-over. It's about the rest of the world wanting scarce resources that you happen to have. They'd be *lucky* if it were an organized take-over, because a mob wouldn't leave anything, and then everyone starves.

The kind of society that Sweetness envisions only works, sadly, if there's a larger social structure that's willing to put up with them and protect them. They can't exist on their own.

And as I think you pointed out, even if they existed in a complete vacuum, eventually other members, or their kids, would think, why do I put up with this when I can just pick up a rock and take over?

Re:Yes

[almechist]

If the Police can have it....then so should we the citizenry....

This is a more significant point than you might think. The court in this case specifically cited the fact that stun guns are not used by the military:

there is nothing in the record to suggest that they are readily adaptable to use in the military

But as you say they are used by our increasingly militant police force. It seems to me a good lawyer should be able to use the judge's own words against him, making the case for stun gun rights by pointing out the growing police usage, which is patently only a step away from military use. Frankly, I can't see these bans being upheld by a supreme court that has already struck down outright bans on handguns.

Re:Yes

[bondsbw]

Sure, and most such systems eventually decide that banding together for the mutual protection and common good is better than warring with your neighbors and always being afraid that they will conquer you. A family becomes community, a community becomes a tribe, a tribe becomes a state, and a state becomes larger and larger. This continues to happen until the state cannot grow any more, or until the group is conquered or falls apart from the inside.

Re:Yes

[NoOneInParticular]

Under the "individual rights" interpretation of the second amendment, yes it does. Also tactical nukes, being necessary to the security of a free State, should be available to the citizenry. ICBM's? ditto. Feeling uncomfortable with your neighbour having a small nuke in his backyard, fully available to his 9 year old kid with an attitude? Tough luck. Security of a free State FTW.

Can't see any logical difference

[sjbe]

Massachusetts ban on private ownership of stun-guns being considered by the Supreme Court, and it's unclear whether such ownership has constitutional protection.

Although logic rarely gets involved in discussions around the 2nd Amendment, I can't think of any logical reason why stun-guns should be treated any different than firearms. The 2nd amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but it doesn't specify only weapons that use gunpowder. The fact that stun-guns using electricity are of recent development is not a relevant consideration to my mind.

The petitioner is asking the court (PDF) to clarify that the Second Amendment covers non-lethal weapons used for self-defense.

There is really no such thing as a "non-lethal weapon". ANY weapon can be used to kill even if they are primarily designed to incapacitate. That said, prohibiting weapons which are generally less lethal while allowing ones that are designed primarily to kill is the height of stupid.

Re:Can't see any logical difference

[FranTaylor]

Prohibition used to be constitutional.

Was it right when it was constitutional?

Re:Can't see any logical difference

[FranTaylor]

Do you really think that arms will defend you from the attacks of the government and corporations? You're just falling for marketing hype.

Re:Can't see any logical difference

[penguinoid]

An important difference is that a "non-lethal" weapon is much more likely to be used than a lethal weapon. For example, police will very frequently use water guns, pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets, tasers, and the like in cases where they would never have used lethal force.

Re:Exclusivity

[fightinfilipino]

Governments and their enforcement branches do not want civilians to have the means of defending themselves from those same government enforcers. Their goal is to keep the public totally defenseless. A defenseless citizenry is easily controlled.

this makes literally no sense in today's age. modern militaries have leaps and bounds better weapons than anything civilians could possess. even worse, this operates on the premise that the only way to have civilization is through constant fear of one another. that's a terrible model of humanity, and no one should want a part of it.

Readily adapatable to military use is NOT a requir

[PortHaven]

Yes, the case was used for banning sawed off shotguns. The argument being the military didn't use them, therefore they were not protected.

Couple points, that decision was flawed. It is well documented that it was one of the worse Supreme Court cases in history. And likely staged...Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.[5]

So imagine using as precedent a case that was never even defended against. So what were the precedents established?

1.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

2.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

***

If you want to USE that argument. Then guess what? 1. This would overturn the 1986 prohibition against post '86 machine guns and fully automatic rifles. As these ARE used by military. 2. Our military now regularly uses short barreled shotguns in door-to-door operations. As such, short barreled rifles would now have to be legal sans the tax stamp.

And even back in the day it was an incorrect decisions as: During WWI, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.[8]

***

AND A BIG FYI - Shot barreled shotguns are NOT illegal per Federal law. They merely require a tax stamp and registration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

LASTLY>>>>>>>

The 2nd Amendment does not state the right to bear guns, or even firearms. But arms....a term for personal weapons...this means guns, knives, swords, electromagnetic pulse pistols, tasers, etc....are ALL protected by the words of the 2nd Amendment.

Don't care about stun guns...

[QuietLagoon]

... but don't event think of trying to take my laser weapon system away from me.

Yes, in many states...

[PortHaven]

In many states the permits simply state the right to bear a concealed weapon. Hence often referenced as a concealed weapons permit.

It's one of my objections with the Pennsylvania permit, while it is one of the best states for personal firearms possession. The permit is worded specifically as a "License To Carry Firearms" (LTCF)

Re:Well-regulated militia

[PortHaven]

Which if you do research, you will learn did not mean "regulations" as we use the term today. It meant "well trained/equipped"...

Re:Well-regulated militia

[nyet]

And "well-regulated" means "well armed, equipped, and trained".

Re:Exclusivity

[FranTaylor]

the only weapons those nations had to face the most powerful army that ever existed in the history of planet earth.....was those same said rifles.

wow, so much ignorance. The ONLY weapons? Do you realize that the human spirit is the most powerful weapon?

Re:Exclusivity

[PortHaven]

Yes....

But I also understand the difference of unarmed human spirit....and armed human spirit.

A Constitutional Rat's Nest

[RandCraw]

In 1789 "arms" meant a musket or a flint lock pistol that fired a miniball, at most twice a minute. I wonder, how far from that can you go and still claim the 2nd amendment applies?

An semi-auto assault rifle? Generally legal.
A fully-auto assault rifle? Generally not legal.
A grenade launcher? A guided missile? A booby trap bomb? Not legal in the US, today.

So there are limits to protected "arms", ill defined as they are. But If we finally had to update the 2nd amendment due to rising tech, things could get interesting.

If the 2nd Amendment is a civil right, what purpose do arms serve the citizen? If self defense, and since there are many more ways to defend one's home and family today than in 1789, should we amend the 2nd to emphasize the goal of self defense rather than allow it to advocate arms as a means to an end that's ill served by the tech advance of ever deadlier offensive weapons - pistols and rifles?

Given the huge difference between an 18th century musket and modern light arms, and the indifference of regulators to respond to that difference, it seems likely that the escalation of guns protected by the 2nd amendment is going to cross a line, and soon.

Re:A Constitutional Rat's Nest

[PortHaven]

"If the 2nd Amendment is a civil right, what purpose do arms serve the citizen"

Remaining citizens rather than slaves....

Whatever small arms the U.S. military has access to, the U.S. citizen is supposed to have access to.

Re:A Constitutional Rat's Nest

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1789 "arms" meant a musket or a flint lock pistol that fired a miniball, at most twice a minute. I wonder, how far from that can you go and still claim the 2nd amendment applies?

You're trying to play word-lawyer instead of looking at the meaning behind the words. The Second Amendment doesn't exist so people can own muskets. The Second Amendment exists because a group of farmers, doctors, and lawyers had just finished overthrowing their own government to secure their liberty and they wanted to make sure future generations also had the ability to do so. That's the context in which all of this should be viewed; not looking up "arms" in a dictionary trying to figure out how far it goes.

The US Constitution is not an instruction manual. It's a statement of guiding principles intended to be broad enough to survive changes to language, customs, and technologies.

An semi-auto assault rifle? Genertally legal.

Constitutionally protected, but in certain states you can largely kiss this goodbye. States like Maryland, California, New York, Connecticut, and others ban or otherwise heavily restrict even the most popular versions of these. Frankly, I think the legislators who pass such laws should go to prison for human and civil rights violations.

A fully-auto assault rifle? Generally not legal.

Wrong. While these are constitutionally protected arms, and while some states do have unconstitutional restrictions on these arms, most states simply follow Federal law (generally governed by the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act - both of which are blatantly unconstitutional and will be declared as such within 20 years). As such, use of these weapons is fairly unregulated (i.e. you can rent/borrow at an indoor or outdoor range and use them all day every day). Ownership of pre-ban automatic weapons is pretty wide open (subject to certain states' restrictions and the usual restrictions for ownership/possession of any any firearm, such as not being a convicted felon). Ownership of post-ban automatic weapons is more heavily regulated by ATF and typically requires that you be in the business of selling such weapons to the military or law enforcement. At that point, you can again purchase and own them pretty freely.

A grenade launcher? A guided missile? A booby trap bomb? Not legal in the US, today.

Wrong. These are classified by ATF as a "Destructive Device" and require registration and a $200 tax stamp for purchase. For a grenade launcher, the launcher AND each round of ammunition requires that you pay the tax stamp and register them and when each round is used, you must report to ATF that it's been destroyed. A pain? Sure. Expensive? Sure. Legal? In most states (subject to very similar restrictions as fully automatic weapons), yes. Constitutionally protected arms? This is where I think we start getting into a more challenging area. I would certainly argue that a grenade launcher is protected. An IED? I lean toward yes, but I'm not completely certain. It fits the general concept of the Second Amendment, so I have a tough time arguing against it.

So there are limits to protected "arms", ill defined as they are. But If we finally had to update the 2nd amendment due to rising tech, things could get interesting.

If the 2nd Amendment is a civil right, what purpose do arms serve the citizen? If self defense, and since there are many more ways to defend one's home and family today than in 1789, should we amend the 2nd to emphasize the goal of self defense rather than allow it to advocate arms as a means to an end that's ill served by the tech advance of ever deadlier offensive weapons - pistols and rifles?

Given the huge difference between an 18th century musket and modern light arms, and the indifference of regulators to respond to that difference, it seems likely that the escalation of guns protected by the 2nd amendment is going

Re:A Constitutional Rat's Nest

[phantomfive]

In 1789 "arms" meant a musket or a flint lock pistol that fired a miniball, at most twice a minute.

I'm not sure that's true. Based on the earliest American dictionary, it seems they took arms to mean "weapons." Note that it includes examples of "arming a militia" or "arming a country," and discusses arms as "weapons, or means of attack or resistance."

So I'm not sure you can rule out any weapon of the day, certainly not knives and swords, but also cannons and ships.

Re:A Constitutional Rat's Nest

[Orgasmatron]

In 1789 "press" meant a movable type device that printed a single sheet, at most a few times a minute. I wonder, how far from that can you go and still claim the 1st amendment applies?

A typewriter?
An electronic fax machine?
A computer? A cell phone? A global inter-network?

So there are limits to protected "presses", ill defined as they are. But If we finally had to update the 1st amendment due to rising tech, things could get interesting.

If the 1st Amendment is a civil right, what purpose do presses serve the citizen? If self expression, and since there are many more ways to express one's thoughts and feelings today than in 1789, should we amend the 1st to emphasize the goal of self expression rather than allow it to advocate presses as a means to an end that's ill served by the tech advance of ever broader expression systems - telephone and internet?

Given the huge difference between an 18th century press and modern communications, and the indifference of regulators to respond to that difference, it seems likely that the escalation of presses protected by the 1st amendment is going to cross a line, and soon.

Re:Well-regulated militia

[Coren22]

Keep reading the rest of the amendment, and you will find that it actually prevents congress from restricting anyone's ownership of "arms". Arms being the nebulous term it is for very good reason.

Re: Are you a farmer

[thebigbadme]

I was at OWS, and there had met a man who now is part of an anarcho-communist farm (which doesnt mean there are no rules or enforcement, but that the members all share in creating the rules, and holding equal standing with other members). This farm is within a half hour drive from New York City, where most of the collective members lived prior to the farm. They raise plants and meat to eat, trade, and sell as needed, and have other skills which they work share, and hire out when here is something they need which they cannot gain in the more broad context of capitalist society. The farm has been in opperation for multiple years now.

Furthermore, as regards Anarchists, there is no ban on using force ( see Spanish Civil War where Anarchists held Barcelona, or the Zapatista movement in Southern Mexico where there has been sucessful active militant resistance to the Mexican National military for almost two decades despite the best efforts of the Mexican government to murder anyone they think are "leading" the movement. There is quite the robust mechanism for widespread collective decision making in S. mexico as well)