Doest 2A Protect Ordnance (part 2)

Mr. Perfect

For reference, Part 1 is here:

https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/1899002/does-2a-protect-ordnance

Comments added to that old thread are welcome.

On reflecting on this topic more, recently, I recall a couple of things said there that have shaped my opinion on the topic significantly in recent days.

1) Surely the framers could have mentioned either or both, but they chose "arms". It could be argued that in choosing "arms" they meant to encompass both, but we have to look to external sources to glean that. (said by me)

2) A militia is generally an army or some other fighting organization... If expected to preform as a military unit, what "arms" do the military use? (said by @pickenup )

I want to address #1 first. We do not, in fact, need to look to external sources as I had postulated. Amendment 9 is all we need. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

We can't lose focus on the fact the founders were acknowledging certain preexisting rights, and enumerated a short list of those they felt were a) vulnerable and b) of utmost importance to protect. The fact they COULD have listed "keeping and bearing ordnance" as a protected right (even as a part of the 2nd amendment), but didn't shouldn't be any indication they didn't think there was no right to it. And in light of point 2 above, we can easily discern the founders not only envisioned the citizens keeping and bearing ordnance, they would have preferred it. Certainly they would want the citizen army to be capable of defending foreign invaders, even if ultimately they really didn't want any sort of uprising (insurrection?) they couldn't squelch. Would any of them been upset if a citizen had brought a tank from his personal arsenal to the battle? That's really hard to envision.

Kevin_L

A really good thread, Mr P. It got me thinking and doing a bit of research.

I ran across this little nugget that takes each part of the second amendment and addresses it in the terms and mindsets used by the writers of the Constitution. (you're gonna be dumbfounded by the source!)

2a-wording-and-definition.pdf

I think it's clear that militias were armed with whatever they could get hold of to defend their area, town, city against threats to liberty. If they had AR15s and flamethrowers back in the day, they would have been expected to use them. No holds barred, eliminate the threat with overwhelming force.

https://www.nps.gov/mima/learn/historyculture/the-militia-and-minute-men-of-1775.htm

The definition of what was a militia is key: a local group of people, with a captain, responsible for defense of the area. Today, police forces have the literal big guns, the ordnance, and other "peacekeeping" machinery . The common populace does not. Have we given away the "militia" responsibility to police forces?

Mr. Perfect

I've had a copy of that PDF for a while. It's decent.