Are hand grenades, missile launchers, and small bombs covered under the second amendment?

Question

I just want to know, where is the line drawn?

When are arms, more so?

Answer 1

Since the constitution states that your right to keep and BEAR arms you should be legally able to keep any non-chemical or nuclear weapons that you can reasonably be expected to pick up and carry or "bear".

Answer 2

no

Answer 3

No. The new Supreme Court decision covers this issue. It specifically mentions that the Second Amendment does not guarentee the right to a machine gun or a sawed off shotgun. See pp.54-56 in J. Scalia's opinion. He seems to say we are entitled only to the type of weapons that are in common use by citizens.

Among other things, Scalia said:

" We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Answer 4

It depends on the license you have obtained.

Answer 5

I don't think conventional military ordinance is covered under the 2nd Amendment--for personal use by civilians.

But if Bush and company successfully manages to gut the Constitution (like they have), I don't see having them would be an issue. :0)

Answer 6

The thugs that live down the street

probably have a lot more that stuff

like that. Laws disarm good citizens

and leave them unprotected against

the thugs. Thugs don't give a d**n

about whether anything is legal or not.

Answer 7

If the government can have it then so should the public do you not agree?

Unless, you like an all powerful all encompassing government ...then awwww, no way comrade! Those capitalist pigs should not be able to threaten the government by the mere possession of arms.  No checks and balances should be able to dis-wade sie government 's power ,eh comrade?

However, I believe those forms of weaponry are dutifully protected by the second amendment but are sadly strictly regulated by the federal government.

Answer 8

I believe any small arms that are commonly used by individual soldiers in a modern militia are protected by the second amendment. So yes hand grenades, RPGs, and even claymores and C4 should be protected, but unfortunately the federal government has severely restricted these weapons to the point they are hard to obtain legally.

If the second amendment is meant to allow the people to form a well regulated militia then we wouldn't be very "well regulated" if we only had bolt action rifles and shotguns. At the very least we need to be able to keep our assault rifles, sniper rifles and armor piercing incendiary rounds. At least then we could snipe tank crews and shoot down aircraft if war was ever to break out.

"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...[T]he 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." - Tenche Coxe

Answer 9

no lol not at all

Answer 10

Yes, as are bazookas, flamethrowers and small tanks.

But firecrackers and M80's are illegal because they're dangerous.

Answer 11

Regulation starts somewhere. Just as we all have the right to bear arms our states have the right to limit what we can own. Although I do disagree with most weapon laws I do think the line has to be drawn somewhere. Maybe those things can be permitted for militia's. We will need these things if we ever have to fight our own government.

The thing is small bombs and missile launchers are not things that even the black market deals in (or at least not much) so I don't think there is a demand, its hard to commit crimes like robbery with grenades and bombs. A mass terror attack they would come in handy but thankfully most people are not insane.  Making something illegal doesn't mean there will be less of them around. Look at drugs.

I do understand your point, the way in which I and others answered your last question provoked you to ask this one I am sure. Its a good question too and I answered it the best I could.

Something to ponder:

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" -  The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

Answer 12

I believe non-automatic small arms are the current limit. That means a weapon that fires a bullet or shell (not missile) that does not explode or burst, and can easily be transported. In other words if you can hold it and safely shoot it one bullet at a time by yourself without anythign blowing up, its protected.

The idea falls under that you do not need a rocket launcher to go hunting for squirrles, or for any other defensive purpose, (unless your being chased by a tank)

Answer 13

They should be.

Hand grenades could come in handy during gopher hunting now that I think about it.

And Liberal48 since our military is made up of citizen soldiers, citizen being first soldiers second, any good lawyer could have a field day with those laws, the same way these kangaroo courts have decided to leave us at the mercy of any crazy national guard unit in case anything ever happens.