Sad day for Canadian gun owners

[realunlucky]

So please explain what "arms" covers then.

Arms included cannons in 1776 what's the applicable equivalent in today world?

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Newtosavage]

Arms included cannons in 1776 what's the applicable equivalent in today world?

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

How do you know that arms included cannons? Where is that written? Serious question.

 

[realunlucky]

How do you know that arms included cannons? Where is that written? Serious question.

Did they use musket? Not the way I read it.
Arms was ALL inclusive during that time period.

 

[flatlanderhuffandpuff]

How do you know that arms included cannons? Where is that written? Serious question.

Ever wonder why you hear the term "small arms fire" when our troops are getting shot at by AK47s? because they are small arms. Big arms go boom and bring down the house.

What is your point? I can't figure out your angle. I'm honestly curious where you stand.

Look up the role the colonial private navy played in the revolutionary war.

 

[Newtosavage]

Did they use musket? Not the way I read it.
Arms was ALL inclusive during that time period.

Alright then, let's follow that logic. So what would "arms" include today, in your opinion?

 

[Newtosavage]

Ever wonder why you hear the term "small arms fire" when our troops are getting shot at by AK47s? because they are small arms. Big arms go boom and bring down the house.

What is your point? I can't figure out your angle. I'm honestly curious where you stand.

Look up the role the colonial private navy played in the revolutionary war.

No "angle" although I know that's the norm and not the exception these days. Just looking at it from a fact-based point of view, which is why I ask about definitions.

 

[mlgc20]

How do you know that arms included cannons? Where is that written? Serious question.

I don't think they ever wrote "cannons are arms". But, private ownership of cannons existed at that time already. Many of them were on private merchant ships that had cannons for self defense and privately owned warships. I believe, some of the men who signed the Constitution had cannons of their own that had been taken from the British.

 

[Newtosavage]

I don't think they ever wrote "cannons are arms". But, private ownership of cannons existed at that time already. Many of them were on private merchant ships that had cannons for self defense and privately owned warships. I believe, some of the men who signed the Constitution had cannons of their own that had been taken from the British.

So, if we agree that cannons were included as "arms" at the time, what then is today's equivalent?

 

[Rob5589]

So please explain what "arms" covers then.

D C v Heller, "arms in common use" was the language the justices used. Grenade launcher, not in common use; AR 15, in common use. The decision clarified that the 2A applied to individuals. Feel free to argue otherwise, it is moot since the United States Supreme Court has decided.

 

[mlgc20]

So, if we agree that cannons were included as "arms" at the time, what then is today's equivalent?

It's a good question. But, I honestly don't know the answer. Part of me wants to say that the founding fathers had every opportunity to define what constituted arms and what doesn't. But, they didn't do that. You could read that one of two ways. Either, they truly meant "shall not be infringed upon" literally with no exceptions. Or you could say, they meant it for that time. But, they couldn't imagine what arms technology would do over the next few hundred years. So, we need a more modern definition.

With the ending of the Revolutionary War there were all kinds of arms (big and small) in private ownership. At the time of the war, there really wasn't a government. It was all owned privately as part of fighting the British. The founding fathers could have later created laws making folks turn in their cannons, and even warships. But, they didn't do that. In fact, the states that subsequently wrote constitutions, continued in very plain language to say that bearing arms was a basic right. Not one state, said anything like: "except for cannons, or warships". That leads me to believe they meant all arms to be OK for private ownership.

I know the logical rebuttal to this is "Well, then people should own RPG's?" And while I don't want the average person to have an RPG. I certainly think our efforts at "gun control" are far more intrusive than originally written and intended in the Constitution.

 

[Aubs8]

It's a good question. But, I honestly don't know the answer. Part of me wants to say that the founding fathers had every opportunity to define what constituted arms and what doesn't. But, they didn't do that. You could read that one of two ways. Either, they truly meant "shall not be infringed upon" literally with no exceptions. Or you could say, they meant it for that time. But, they couldn't imagine what arms technology would do over the next few hundred years. So, we need a more modern definition.

With the ending of the Revolutionary War there were all kinds of arms (big and small) in private ownership. At the time of the war, there really wasn't a government. It was all owned privately as part of fighting the British. The founding fathers could have later created laws making folks turn in their cannons, and even warships. But, they didn't do that. In fact, the states that subsequently wrote constitutions, continued in very plain language to say that bearing arms was a basic right. Not one state, said anything like: "except for cannons, or warships". That leads me to believe they meant all arms to be OK for private ownership.

I know the logical rebuttal to this is "Well, then people should own RPG's?" And while I don't want the average person to have an RPG. I certainly think our efforts at "gun control" are far more intrusive than originally written and intended in the Constitution.

 

[shoeshineman]

So please explain what "arms" covers then.

I, personally, consider "arms" to be anything useful in violently resisting tyranny.

example:
Is object "X" useful in violently resisting threats to liberty and resisting tyranny?
If yes, then it is "arms"
If no, then it is not.

My opinion = Free men have a Natural Right and moral obligation to violently resist tyranny and uphold liberty for future generations. I believe that the history of humanity reflects this view.

Some people disagree with me on this. Their opinion doesn't change mine, unless they can convince me with evidence or better argument.

 

[Newtosavage]

D C v Heller, "arms in common use" was the language the justices used. Grenade launcher, not in common use; AR 15, in common use. The decision clarified that the 2A applied to individuals. Feel free to argue otherwise, it is moot since the United States Supreme Court has decided.

I'm not interested in arguing anything. There is no point in it. Just looking to follow the logic some folks are applying, to a reasonable conclusion.

I think some folks here would disagree that "arms" equals "arms in common use." I would like to hear why, and what they would suggest instead.

 

[Newtosavage]

It's a good question. But, I honestly don't know the answer. Part of me wants to say that the founding fathers had every opportunity to define what constituted arms and what doesn't. But, they didn't do that. You could read that one of two ways. Either, they truly meant "shall not be infringed upon" literally with no exceptions. Or you could say, they meant it for that time. But, they couldn't imagine what arms technology would do over the next few hundred years. So, we need a more modern definition.

With the ending of the Revolutionary War there were all kinds of arms (big and small) in private ownership. At the time of the war, there really wasn't a government. It was all owned privately as part of fighting the British. The founding fathers could have later created laws making folks turn in their cannons, and even warships. But, they didn't do that. In fact, the states that subsequently wrote constitutions, continued in very plain language to say that bearing arms was a basic right. Not one state, said anything like: "except for cannons, or warships". That leads me to believe they meant all arms to be OK for private ownership.

I know the logical rebuttal to this is "Well, then people should own RPG's?" And while I don't want the average person to have an RPG. I certainly think our efforts at "gun control" are far more intrusive than originally written and intended in the Constitution.

Well-reasoned logic there.

 

[Dustin the wind]

If a man with good morales owns an AR and another equally moral man owns a 120mm howitzer, which one is more likely to want to kill you? See what a stupid question that is and we all know the answer. If you get the correct federal licenses you can own a modern day cannon or heavy machine gun and if you are a law abiding citizen then you should be able to. Why not? I can go fill up a 500gal gas tank and light that up, pretty big boom, why isn’t that illegal? People just focus on firearms because it’s easy and lazy.

 

[LongWayAround]

My feeling is that the interpretation of 'arms' isn't the most important part of the Second.

The words that ring out to me are "shall not be infringed."

 

[Rob5589]

I'm not interested in arguing anything. There is no point in it. Just looking to follow the logic some folks are applying, to a reasonable conclusion.

I think some folks here would disagree that "arms" equals "arms in common use." I would like to hear why, and what they would suggest instead.

What arms are in common use among the public? Not difficult to see. In the decision they also made reference to "no right being absolute." So no, a RPG is not something commonly used by individuals. An AR pattern rifle is extremely common so it is protected.
"To bear" is to carry upon your person. So it is permissable, in that context, to carry your firearm upon your person, openly. Carrying concealed however is, or may not be, part of the "bear." There are cases around the country trying to make that determination. The SCOTUS has yet to hear a case to decide, as far as I know.

 

[Newtosavage]

My feeling is that the interpretation of 'arms' isn't the most important part of the Second.

The words that ring out to me are "shall not be infringed."

Actually, defining "arms" is the most important. Nobody cares if your ability to shoot a slingshot off your porch is infringed. Determining how "arms" is defined will lead to how people feel about whether their rights have in fact, already been "infringed."

 

[Newtosavage]

What arms are in common use among the public? Not difficult to see. In the decision they also made reference to "no right being absolute." So no, a RPG is not something commonly used by individuals. An AR pattern rifle is extremely common so it is protected.
"To bear" is to carry upon your person. So it is permissable, in that context, to carry your firearm upon your person, openly. Carrying concealed however is, or may not be, part of the "bear." There are cases around the country trying to make that determination. The SCOTUS has yet to hear a case to decide, as far as I know.

I agree that the "bear" portion is very important, and often overlooked in this discussion for one reason or another.

 

[shoeshineman]

How does SCOTUS read things like "common use" from the Constitution and Bill of Rights? I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand this. It seems, to me, to be some kind of English tradition of common law practice or something. Why don't these people just read the document itself as written for guidance. Why didn't the founders just write "common use" when they wrote the document if that is what they intended? Is "common use" used anywhere in the original documents? I don't see it in the 2A. It seems like fancy black magic lawyer logic talk to me. Does this mean I'm a Constitutional literalist country bumpkin? Is there something I can read to understand this, without going to fancy lawyer school?