Explosives, bombs and destructive devices
In light of the recent court ruling, folks are discussing the legal theories and practicality of things that go boom. Joe chimes in in comments here. Sebastian runs down the classification of such gizmos. He also discusses a legal theory on destructive devices.
I, generally, have no interest in blowing things up. But since most folks seem to agree that some sort of line should be drawn with respect to what the second amendment protects (somewhere between machine guns and nukes, apparently), it’s a good mental exercise.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Seeing as DD’s are as legal as Sound Suppressors, I’m not so sure most folks seem to agree that some sort of line should be drawn.
And if they do, is there really any excuse for tolerating ignorance?
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 am
Any weapon. Anytime. Anywhere. By anybody.
Second Amendment contains no exceptions. The Founding Fathers could have put exceptions in, but they didn’t. Any lower law that does put in exceptions is illegal.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 am
Say Uncle, you generally don’t have an interest in blowing things up?
I’m with Ragnar Benson on this. It has to be some abhorrent character defect.
😉
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:47 am
One could argue it’s “keep AND bear”, not “keep OR bear”. My feeling has been anything a patrol level troop member would hump is under the second amendment. Chemical/biological weapons seem to fall more under treaty than domestic law. I would have to say, though, that where the line is drawn is up to the States, not the Feds, per the 9th & 10th Amendments. If Indiana wants me to keep an anti-tank rocket stored, DC has no say.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
That’s another thing, I’ve never understood the argument that a State has any more right to infringe on civil rights then the Feds.
I could care less how much California or Texas or New York or Tennessee want to infringe on our right to Keep and Bear Arms, our right speak our mind, or or our right for them to stay the hell out of our lives. The Bill of Rights is not called the “List of rights that can be ignored by the people that are not of the Federal Government”. It’s not called “List of rights defendant of a popular vote in any of the many states” either.
A Republic cannot stand if it allows the erosion of it’s citizens rights by any government body contained within.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
States have no rights, only power. When the constitution was written there were few limits on State power, in part because the founders didn’t want the new federal government to have the power to limit the states. States were limited by their own constitutions. After the Civil War and the 14th amendment, the States were forced by the federal government to recognize rights listed in the Bill of Rights. The problem is, the federal government was less concerned with protecting it’s citizen’s rights, and more concerned with wielding increasing power over the states.
I think what can’t be ignored is the notion of natural rights, rights that existed before government. The Supreme Court recognized the most fundimental in Heller, the right of self-defense. I don’t think it’s an unlimited right, although I think it’s far, far more limited by the federal government than it should be right now.
I believe the Second Amendment is about self-defense, but also about collective defense, such as repelling an invasion. In this regard our chosen government should serve it’s citizens, and I feel the more local the control, the better. That’s why the body of the constitution gives more power to the States for developing an army or militia, in my opinion. It should-a state should be able to fight off the federal government. States joined willingly, and should be free to secede.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
What Bugei Says. No limits.