What does the word "arms" mean in the second amendment to the US constitution?

Question

Handguns and rifles? Weapons known to the framers (swords, muskets, cannon)? Arms in today's usual sense, including tanks, bazookas, and nuclear weapons? Exactly what, according to the constitution, have I the right to bear? (Can you bear a tank?)

Answer 1

Well-regulated arms...meaning firearms.

Answer 2

Your right to bear any arms as would be used in a well regulated militia is protected, according to the supreme court. Over the years since it was written, sawed of shotguns and assault rifles have been defined and re-defined as to Militia issue. Larger weapons like bazookas and cannons are not covered, (thus not regulated?) Nukes, well, I sure wouldn't want my neighbor to have one, especially if he has unstable teens.

I thought this question would be an easy on line research. Boy was I wrong. There are many conflicting opinions as to which weapons are or aren't covered. I wonder how much a tank goes for on the open market?

Answer 3

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

anything that the military has we have a right to own. So that "if"  tyranny happens we can repel the traitorous federal government on even power terms.

Answer 5

I would presume that "arms' refers to any kind of military armaments, weapons or firearms. But whether than can be interpreted to also mean cell phones that can detonate bombs, nuclear weapons of mass destruction, or poison darts is another question.

Which, of course, brings up one more question: if we have the right to bear arms, shouldn't we have the right to arm bears???   -RKO-   06/29/08

Answer 6

no,like back then a civilian couldn't own a cannon.hope this helps.

Answer 7

"Bear" means "carry", simple enough. If you can carry a tank, you have the right to bear it.

But let us get real.

You have to first assume that the framers were relatively sane. The primary reason for the 2nd amendment was at bottom, self-defense — against any assailant be it an invader, an oppressor, or a criminal.

So what is necessary for face-to-face self-defense? A bazooka? No. A sword? Maybe, but not much use against a gun. You see where I'm going with this. If you're defending yourself against a gun, you need a gun. You don't need a tank, and a dagger won't cut it.

A little common sense and logic, plus a knowledge of what the framers actually intended, as can be found in their letters and speeches of the day, makes the application of the 2nd Amendment crystal clear. IMO.

Answer 8

it means personal weapons, usually for self defense, pistols, rifles, shotguns. Washington has passed laws on the types... but they can't stop you from having the basics.... no you can't have a tank. or automatic weapons. or high explosives, etc.

when they wrote the constitution, they didn't have all those things so when something new comes out, they regulate it.... the average Joe can't have the good stuff. but we can all dream can't we??

Answer 9

Anything that shoots but has to be reloaded after every shot should be just fine.