My Issue With The 2008 Second Amendment Decision

[Skwim]

That is not true. A declarative clause may certainly announce purpose without limiting the broader clause.

I agree, but in this case where the subordinating conjunction "because" is implied the dependent clause functions as a qualifier. Simply consider the opening clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," which qualifies the circumstances under which whatever follows is true.

Take

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"​

by itself. What, exactly, does it tell us? Only that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Okay, but so what? What does that have to do with establishing any kind of Amendment right? Does it say something about what precedes it, or does it say something about what follows? Well it's not saying anything about what precedes it so it has to be saying something about what follows, which being the case here, then it operates as a qualifier. In other words, a regulator. And just how does "A well . . ." regulate what follows? Lacking any other reasonable option, it announces a "because," which is appended to its beginning.
But although "because" doesn't appear in the amendment it's implied with just as much certainty as it appears in the rearrangement of its two clauses:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,."

(Because) a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

.


.

 

[Skwim]

I was under the assumption that a "well-regulated militia" was already filled by the National Guard of each state. Maybe I interpreted it wrong. I'm fairly certain the Founding Fathers had no idea what weapon technology was going to become in roughly 150 years time. If people want to exercise their rights let them do it with black powder rifles.

It is filled by the National Guard of each state.

.

 

[Revoltingest]

The amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State reads as follows:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled [5-4 majority] that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.
sourcfe
​

Personally, I feel this is an extremely bad ruling, and here's why, but first bear with me for a moment while I establish a point of grammatical structure.

If I, a swimming coach, said, Because you're a member of the swimming team, your right to go swimming can't be denied by the lifeguards " it means that, being a member of the swimming team you have a right to swim. Now, the very same meaning can be conveyed by reversing the order of the two clauses. "your right to go swimming can't be denied by the lifeguards because you're a member of the swimming team." See what's going on? No matter how you read it, your right to swim hinges on being a member of the team. Not a member? then the lifeguards could well stop you from swimming.

Now, taking a look at the Second Amendment we again read:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

And reversing the order of the two clauses:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,."
​

Both mean exactly the same thing, but most telling is the "because," in that it more clearly establishes the reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But, what if there is no reason? Not a member of the swimming team, or no necessity for a well regulated militia? Then there's no guarantee you can swim, or any legal reason you have a right to keep and bear arms.

Now here's the kicker: because there is no "well regulated militia" composed of citizens using their own fire arms assembled to "secure a free state," and no foreseeable need for one, no Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms exists---or at least, should exist.

In my opinion (I know everyone's been waiting for this ), if you want to claim a Constitutional right to have a firearm, then you darn well better be a member of a well regulated militia that's been organized to secure a free state.

That said, I can only shake my head in disbelief at the court's ruling. And as it stands, the court's ruling treats the 2nd Amendment as simply stating, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," being immaterial.
.

The grammatical argument has some shortcomings.....
1) The 2nd Amendment ("2A") isn't a conditional clause which requires militia membership in order to enjoy the right. Id est, it's not an "if then" statement. Had the framers intended that, one would expect them to have so constructed it.
2) The 2A states the necessity of the militia as a reason for the right to bear arms, but doesn't limit this as the singular reason. The Anti-Federalists, who authored it, had more in mind.
3) The various definitions of the "militia" used by the Constitution's framers are quite broad, not requiring active participation or organization. See note 1.
4) The 2A also has roots in English common law's right to self defense.
5) Even if the stated reason in the 2A were deemed obsolete by the USSC, the 2A doesn't provide for eliminating the right.
6) The USSC lacks the power to deem militias obsolete.
7) To be included in the Bill Of Rights indicated a right of such importance that it was needed in order to ratify the Constitution. Such a right, if it were to be removed, shouldn't be doable by congressional or USSC fiat. An amendment would be appropriate.

Note 1:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[Skwim]

Yes, it can be read as "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What it does not say is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed only if they join a militia." You're reading into it something that doesn't exist.

Then why even bothering with the reason? Instead of saying

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

the Amendment may just as well say

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
​

But it doesn't because that wasn't the intent of its authors and those who ratified it. They went to the trouble of establishing the reason why The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And if that reason no longer exists, then the Constitutional right has lost its basis for existence.

.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Then why even bothering with the reason? Instead of saying

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

the Amendment may just as well say

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
​

But it doesn't because that wasn't the intent of its authors and those who ratified it. They went to the trouble of establishing the reason why The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And if that reason no longer exists, then the Constitutional right has lost its basis for existence.

.

How exactly would you determine that such a reason no longer exists?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Actually, the whole Amendment, including the need for a well regulated militia, implies a present need, rather than an ability to form a militia later on if the need arises. What you're suggesting is that the Amendment read:

"Should the need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state arise , the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

No I am not, and to restrict ownership of guns is infringement of the right mentioned in the amendment. The amendment specifically does not mention a time, and your ad hoc addition of 'present need' is a mere convenience to your poor argument.

 

[siti]

In my opinion (I know everyone's been waiting for this ), if you want to claim a Constitutional right to have a firearm, then you darn well better be a member of a well regulated militia that's been organized to secure a free state.

It would be nice, in terms of my liberal, pro-restriction opinion, if this were a correct interpretation, but I don't think it fits with the historical context - which is, perhaps, more important to interpreting the intent than a possibly implied "because". It is pretty clear from other things that Jefferson and others wrote around the same time that the 'militia' was intended to be composed of all able-bodied members of the state. For example, George Mason said "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers" and James Madison is recorded as saying (in an address to Congress) "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

They feared a standing army because of the potential for a coup - and felt that having every citizen both armed and "trained to arms" so that each would be "intimate with his gun from his infancy" (as Jefferson had earlier commented in a letter) was the surest defense against external aggressors, internal insurrections and potential slave uprisings.

So, in terms of the gun law debate, the constitutional question is not so much a matter of interpretation - it is clear that the intent was not only to permit, but to encourage the arming of every civilian capable of bearing arms. The question is about relevance. The US now has a standing army and there are professional state 'militia' tasked with maintaining security, peace and order. There are certainly no slave uprisings to be guarded against. And are the external aggressors and internal insurrections that remain a potential threat really most effectively avoided by arming the public? I suspect not. I suspect the opposite.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would be nice, in terms of my liberal, pro-restriction opinion, if this were a correct interpretation, but I don't think it fits with the historical context - which is, perhaps, more important to interpreting the intent than a possibly implied "because". It is pretty clear from other things that Jefferson and others wrote around the same time that the 'militia' was intended to be composed of all able-bodied members of the state. For example, George Mason said "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers" and James Madison is recorded as saying (in an address to Congress) "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

They feared a standing army because of the potential for a coup - and felt that having every citizen both armed and "trained to arms" so that each would be "intimate with his gun from his infancy" (as Jefferson had earlier commented in a letter) was the surest defense against external aggressors, internal insurrections and potential slave uprisings.

So, in terms of the gun law debate, the constitutional question is not so much a matter of interpretation - it is clear that the intent was not only to permit, but to encourage the arming of every civilian capable of bearing arms. The question is about relevance. The US now has a standing army and there are professional state 'militia'. There are certainly no slave uprisings to be guarded against. And are external aggressors and internal insurrections really most effectively avoided by arming the public? I suspect not.

We do still live in an age where foreign aggressors are fought off with small arms.
It it unlikely here? Yes.
Is it an impossible scenario? No.

 

[siti]

We do still live in an age where foreign aggressors are fought off with small arms.
It it unlikely here? Yes.
Is it an impossible scenario? No.

So are you defending a 'no restrictions' position on the grounds of a possible but unlikely scenario? Is it likely (fantastical dystopian TV serial scenarios apart) that the citizenry would quickly organize themselves into a well-regulated militia to fend off such a threat if it did arise? Or is it more likely that no matter how well-armed the populace might be, they'd be much more likely to await the arrival of the national guard or the marines anyway - unless the aggressors were actually in their own back yard? Its not the same world as the 1790s. Most gun owners would not "intimately familiar" with their weapon of choice "from infancy" - even if that were allowed - and many of them will never have shot at anything that even tries to get out of the way, let alone shoots back.

I do take your earlier point about Congress + President - Constitution = potential disaster though...I agree that Constitutional guarantees of freedom should not be overturned lightly...but I still keep coming back to the point that it just seems bizarre that it is easier to acquire the means to deliberately 'off' dozens of innocent people than it is to get permission to drive a car. There's surely got to be some way to rationalize that deadly anomaly that is both constitutionally and socially acceptable. Don't you think?

 

[Revoltingest]

So are you defending a 'no restrictions' position on the grounds of a possible but unlikely scenario? Is it likely (fantastical dystopian TV serial scenarios apart) that the citizenry would quickly organize themselves into a well-regulated militia to fend off such a threat if it did arise? Or is it more likely that no matter how well-armed the populace might be, they'd be much more likely to await the arrival of the national guard or the marines anyway - unless the aggressors were actually in their own back yard? Its not the same world as the 1790s. Most gun owners would not "intimately familiar" with their weapon of choice "from infancy" - even if that were allowed - and many of them will never have shot at anything that even tries to get out of the way, let alone shoots back.

I do take your earlier point about Congress + President - Constitution = potential disaster though...I agree that Constitutional guarantees of freedom should not be overturned lightly...but I still keep coming back to the point that it just seems bizarre that it is easier to acquire the means to deliberately 'off' dozens of innocent people than it is to get permission to drive a car. There's surely got to be some way to rationalize that deadly anomaly that is both constitutionally and socially acceptable. Don't you think?

I don't know what you mean by a "no restrictions position" or in what context.
FWIW, regarding the gun control aspect, I've proposed a whole host of regulations
to address wrongful shootings (all of which are constitutional IMO). Does this
address your post?

 

[siti]

I don't know what you mean by a "no restrictions position" or in what context.
FWIW, regarding the gun control aspect, I've proposed a whole host of regulations
to address wrongful shootings (all of which are constitutional IMO). Does this
address your post?

Yes. I just meant (in the context of a discussion about the second amendment) that I don't think it is especially helpful for any argument (for or against gun control) to attempt to reinterpret the second amendment - clearly the second amendment was intended to ensure 'no restrictions' on gun ownership - there's no mileage in either side suggesting otherwise - or to attempt to stretch the intent to cover the kind of individual self-defense capability that might be needed in the 21st century (although that does appear to be the direction legal opinion has gone - at least in the decision addressed in the OP).

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. I just meant (in the context of a discussion about the second amendment) that I don't think it is especially helpful for any argument (for or against gun control) to attempt to reinterpret the second amendment - clearly the second amendment was intended to ensure 'no restrictions' on gun ownership - there's no mileage in either side suggesting otherwise - or to attempt to stretch the intent to cover the kind of individual self-defense capability that might be needed in the 21st century (although that does appear to be the direction legal opinion has gone - at least in the decision addressed in the OP).

"No restrictions" might conflict with the definition of "arms".
As a constitutional originalist, I read the latter to be what
the framers saw in the hands of citizens, ie, militarily capable
small arms...not cannons or ships.
Useful regulation which doesn't unreasonably infringe upon the
right strikes me as acceptable. But that's something up for
extensive discussion.

 

[Stanyon]

The amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State reads as follows:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled [5-4 majority] that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.
sourcfe
​

Personally, I feel this is an extremely bad ruling, and here's why, but first bear with me for a moment while I establish a point of grammatical structure.

If I, a swimming coach, said, Because you're a member of the swimming team, your right to go swimming can't be denied by the lifeguards " it means that, being a member of the swimming team you have a right to swim. Now, the very same meaning can be conveyed by reversing the order of the two clauses. "your right to go swimming can't be denied by the lifeguards because you're a member of the swimming team." See what's going on? No matter how you read it, your right to swim hinges on being a member of the team. Not a member? then the lifeguards could well stop you from swimming.

Now, taking a look at the Second Amendment we again read:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

And reversing the order of the two clauses:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,."
​

Both mean exactly the same thing, but most telling is the "because," in that it more clearly establishes the reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But, what if there is no reason? Not a member of the swimming team, or no necessity for a well regulated militia? Then there's no guarantee you can swim, or any legal reason you have a right to keep and bear arms.

Now here's the kicker: because there is no "well regulated militia" composed of citizens using their own fire arms assembled to "secure a free state," and no foreseeable need for one, no Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms exists---or at least, should exist.

In my opinion (I know everyone's been waiting for this ), if you want to claim a Constitutional right to have a firearm, then you darn well better be a member of a well regulated militia that's been organized to secure a free state.

That said, I can only shake my head in disbelief at the court's ruling. And as it stands, the court's ruling treats the 2nd Amendment as simply stating, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," being immaterial.
.

To understand the ruling I think it would be wise to read the founding fathers personal views on the ownership and use of firearms outside the constraints of the wording of the second amendment, it may make a little more sense to you.

 

[Curious George]

I agree, but in this case where the subordinating conjunction "because" is implied the dependent clause functions as a qualifier. Simply consider the opening clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," which qualifies the circumstances under which whatever follows is true.

Take

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"​

by itself. What, exactly, does it tell us? Only that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Okay, but so what? What does that have to do with establishing any kind of Amendment right? Does it say something about what precedes it, or does it say something about what follows? Well it's not saying anything about what precedes it so it has to be saying something about what follows, which being the case here, then it operates as a qualifier. In other words, a regulator. And just how does "A well . . ." regulate what follows? Lacking any other reasonable option, it announces a "because," which is appended to its beginning.
But although "because" doesn't appear in the amendment it's implied with just as much certainty as it appears in the rearrangement of its two clauses:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,."

(Because) a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

.


.

You are reaching. You want people to read something that literally is not there. To compound the problem, history too disagrees with your reading.

Given your opinion on gun control, is it possible this is bias. The word because is not present and the sentence does not necessitate the word because. Given that, why ought we construe something unnecessary?

 

[Revoltingest]

You are reaching. You want people to read something that literally is not there. To compound the problem, history too disagrees with your reading.

Given your opinion on gun control, is it possible this is bias. The word because is not present and the sentence does not necessitate the word because. Given that, why ought we construe something unnecessary?

Everyone is entitled to their bias.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State reads as follows:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled [5-4 majority] that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.
sourcfe
​

Personally, I feel this is an extremely bad ruling, and here's why, but first bear with me for a moment while I establish a point of grammatical structure.

If I, a swimming coach, said, Because you're a member of the swimming team, your right to go swimming can't be denied by the lifeguards " it means that, being a member of the swimming team you have a right to swim. Now, the very same meaning can be conveyed by reversing the order of the two clauses. "your right to go swimming can't be denied by the lifeguards because you're a member of the swimming team." See what's going on? No matter how you read it, your right to swim hinges on being a member of the team. Not a member? then the lifeguards could well stop you from swimming.

Now, taking a look at the Second Amendment we again read:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

And reversing the order of the two clauses:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,."
​

Both mean exactly the same thing, but most telling is the "because," in that it more clearly establishes the reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But, what if there is no reason? Not a member of the swimming team, or no necessity for a well regulated militia? Then there's no guarantee you can swim, or any legal reason you have a right to keep and bear arms.

Now here's the kicker: because there is no "well regulated militia" composed of citizens using their own fire arms assembled to "secure a free state," and no foreseeable need for one, no Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms exists---or at least, should exist.

In my opinion (I know everyone's been waiting for this ), if you want to claim a Constitutional right to have a firearm, then you darn well better be a member of a well regulated militia that's been organized to secure a free state.

That said, I can only shake my head in disbelief at the court's ruling. And as it stands, the court's ruling treats the 2nd Amendment as simply stating, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," being immaterial.
.

Oh, the power of the "gun-ownership PACs"!

 

[siti]

"No restrictions" might conflict with the definition of "arms".

I don't think so really - asserting the right of individuals to 'bear arms' implies that the arms to be 'borne' are 'bearable' by individuals...I think any reasonable interpretation then or now would have excluded battleships, tanks, cannons etc. It is interesting though whether it would have excluded eminently 'bearable' weapons like grenades then (I just don't know how or if that was regulated somehow - they were certainly used in the Civil War - but I suspect it was not actually regulated before the 1930s) - obviously live grenades are illegal now along with other explosive devices and fully automatic weapons.

 

[Nous]

The amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State reads as follows:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled [5-4 majority] that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.
sourcfe
​

Personally, I feel this is an extremely bad ruling, and here's why, but first bear with me for a moment while I establish a point of grammatical structure.

If I, a swimming coach, said, Because you're a member of the swimming team, your right to go swimming can't be denied by the lifeguards " it means that, being a member of the swimming team you have a right to swim. Now, the very same meaning can be conveyed by reversing the order of the two clauses. "your right to go swimming can't be denied by the lifeguards because you're a member of the swimming team." See what's going on? No matter how you read it, your right to swim hinges on being a member of the team. Not a member? then the lifeguards could well stop you from swimming.

Now, taking a look at the Second Amendment we again read:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

And reversing the order of the two clauses:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,."
​

Both mean exactly the same thing, but most telling is the "because," in that it more clearly establishes the reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But, what if there is no reason? Not a member of the swimming team, or no necessity for a well regulated militia? Then there's no guarantee you can swim, or any legal reason you have a right to keep and bear arms.

Now here's the kicker: because there is no "well regulated militia" composed of citizens using their own fire arms assembled to "secure a free state," and no foreseeable need for one, no Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms exists---or at least, should exist.

In my opinion (I know everyone's been waiting for this ), if you want to claim a Constitutional right to have a firearm, then you darn well better be a member of a well regulated militia that's been organized to secure a free state.

That said, I can only shake my head in disbelief at the court's ruling. And as it stands, the court's ruling treats the 2nd Amendment as simply stating, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," being immaterial.
.

I more or less agree with your analysis here. Just as you did, I've formulated sentences that were analogous to the Second Amendment to show the necessary connection between the prefatory clause and the declarative part of the sentence. Obviously the security of a free state and a well-regulated militia have something do to with the rest of the sentence. Moreover, the prefatory clause is simply not language those anyone would have ever used if one's purpose was codify a right of individuals to possess a certain type of gun for purposes of self-defense in the home. Yet that's what the Heller majority incomprehensibly asserted the Second Amendment's purpose is.

The further incomprehensible aspect of the Heller holding is that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and trigger lock requirement still did not infringe the alleged right of individuals to possess arms for the purpose of self-defense in the home. The Court has long recognized the constitutionality of outright bans on a variety of types of arms--machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, nuclear devices, etc. Pound for pound, handguns could likely be considered the most deadly type of firearm in the US, killing more people per year than the automatic rifles that can fire a thousand bullets in a second. The Court has long recognized the constitutionality of a variety of sorts of regulations of arms, such as storage requirements. The DC laws the Court struck down need not be considered to infringe the Second Amendment right than these laws do.

Heller is an unjustifiable decision from every angle one approaches it. Some day the Court will recognize this fact.

 

[Nous]

Given the history of the right to bear arms and the constitution of the different states any construction that argues as you do, does so to deliberately misconstrued obvious intent.

What do you say is the "obvious intent" of the Second Amendment?

Several of the state analogs of the amendment specified that the right included self-defense among its purposes. The Framers of the Second Amendment were certainly familiar with these declarations in state constitutions. The Framers of the Second Amendment could have included such a provision, but chose not to.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think so really - asserting the right of individuals to 'bear arms' implies that the arms to be 'borne' are 'bearable' by individuals...I think any reasonable interpretation then or now would have excluded battleships, tanks, cannons etc. It is interesting though whether it would have excluded eminently 'bearable' weapons like grenades then (I just don't know how or if that was regulated somehow - they were certainly used in the Civil War - but I suspect it was not actually regulated before the 1930s) - obviously live grenades are illegal now along with other explosive devices and fully automatic weapons.

Well, there you go....restrictions.
Only the extent is up for debate.