The most recent challenges to the Second Amendment have come in a couple forms: Who is allowed to possess "arms" , where are we allowed to possess them, and which features can arms have?
Probably the most under-talked about point is what exactly are considered arms, and are rights infringed upon by restricting access to any arms by definition? Can access to just some arms satisfy the constitutional amendment? Are knives and spears considered arms?
Lets take a look at some recent definitions to see how this may all play out. It really is of supreme importance how the word "arms" are defined.
- First, a few modern definitions of “arms” present themselves. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as “a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word arms as “anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.”
- Federal law fails to define “arms” explicitly, but does identify some sub-groups of arms. For example, the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) does not define arms in general terms, but does exhaustively list what items count as “firearms” under Federal law, including shotguns, rifles, machine guns, silencers, and the catch-all terms “any other weapon” or “destructive devices.” Almost all the types of weapons listed in the NFA are easily man-portable, except for some rockets, missiles, bombs and mines that would presumably qualify as “destructive devices” but which weigh too much to be easily carried by one person.
- The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (“OCCSSA”) defines “firearm” as any weapon which is designed as or may be readily convertible to expel a projectile. The definition also includes the frame or receiver of such a weapon, any firearm muffler or firearm silencer, or any “destructive device.” “Destructive devices” include bombs, missiles, rockets, grenades, mines and similar devices, whether they have explosive, incendiary, or poison-gas warheads.
It's pretty obvious that the ambiguity of the definition of "arms" has led to some level of infringement, but does there need to be a legal definition set forth? States and routinely the Federal government propose legislation that would limit features or capacities for firearms that are currently legal to possess. Is there a need to legally spell out firearms that are specifically protected under the Second, or would this set up a future weakness in the Second? Does simply having the option to purchase an H&R .410 bore satisfy the Second Amendment? If not, why, and what would?
What would you define as a legal arm under the law? What if any limits would there be?
Thoughts?
Probably the most under-talked about point is what exactly are considered arms, and are rights infringed upon by restricting access to any arms by definition? Can access to just some arms satisfy the constitutional amendment? Are knives and spears considered arms?
Lets take a look at some recent definitions to see how this may all play out. It really is of supreme importance how the word "arms" are defined.
- First, a few modern definitions of “arms” present themselves. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as “a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word arms as “anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.”
- Federal law fails to define “arms” explicitly, but does identify some sub-groups of arms. For example, the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) does not define arms in general terms, but does exhaustively list what items count as “firearms” under Federal law, including shotguns, rifles, machine guns, silencers, and the catch-all terms “any other weapon” or “destructive devices.” Almost all the types of weapons listed in the NFA are easily man-portable, except for some rockets, missiles, bombs and mines that would presumably qualify as “destructive devices” but which weigh too much to be easily carried by one person.
- The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (“OCCSSA”) defines “firearm” as any weapon which is designed as or may be readily convertible to expel a projectile. The definition also includes the frame or receiver of such a weapon, any firearm muffler or firearm silencer, or any “destructive device.” “Destructive devices” include bombs, missiles, rockets, grenades, mines and similar devices, whether they have explosive, incendiary, or poison-gas warheads.
It's pretty obvious that the ambiguity of the definition of "arms" has led to some level of infringement, but does there need to be a legal definition set forth? States and routinely the Federal government propose legislation that would limit features or capacities for firearms that are currently legal to possess. Is there a need to legally spell out firearms that are specifically protected under the Second, or would this set up a future weakness in the Second? Does simply having the option to purchase an H&R .410 bore satisfy the Second Amendment? If not, why, and what would?
What would you define as a legal arm under the law? What if any limits would there be?
Thoughts?
Last edited:
