Right To Bear Arms...

*hopefully this is in the right section*

Does it cover knives?

An argument is being made that the Second Amendment also covers knives. Are knives "Arms?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/us/05knives.html?pagewanted=2&hp

"But the problem is with the knife wielder, not the knife itself, the knife lobby says, sounding very much like those who advocate for gun rights.
In fact, knife advocates contend that the Second Amendment applies to knives as well as guns. They focus their argument elsewhere, though, emphasizing that knives fill so many beneficial roles, from carving Thanksgiving turkeys to whittling, that they do not deserve the bad name they often get."

"“Arizona is now the model when it comes to knives,” said Mr. Rathner, who was a National Rifle Association lobbyist before he switched to knives. “We’re now going to be moving to other states, probably in the Rocky Mountains and the Southeast. There’s probably half a dozen or more places that are ripe for this.” "

Beretta92FSLady said:

*hopefully this is in the right section*

Does it cover knives?

An argument is being made that the Second Amendment also covers knives. Are knives "Arms?"

Click to expand...

Of course it covers knives! Knives, swords, clubs, a board with a nail in it. Anything that can be used as a weapon in self defense or offense against an abusive government. I would say if it covers guns why -wouldn't- it cover knives or "edged weapons".

ChiangShih said:

Of course it covers knives! Knives, swords, clubs, a board with a nail in it. Anything that can be used as a weapon in self defense or offense against an abusive government. I would say if it covers guns why -wouldn't- it cover knives or "edged weapons".

Click to expand...

Hmm...what about sporks?

In all seriousness...is the topic of carrying knives against forum rules? I know that the focus is on handguns, but generally speaking, knives fall under the Second Amendment IMO.

When evaluating any part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence, one must always make the best possible attempt at doing such with the original meaning and intent of the text. The Second Amendment's makes use of two items of interest which have caused much consternation and, for whatever reason, confusion in the minds of some. The use of the word, "arms" has been compared and matched to everything from long guns and hand guns, to tanks and even nuclear weapons. In fact, what it meant was an arm which was capable of being carried on or about the person.

The other part of the amendment which has created stirs for many generations is, " well regulated militia". This phrase does not refer to drilling and conducting field training on a frequent basis. What it meant at the time of its writing was, "to keep and make regular".

Hope this all helps.

Carried about the person; what ever Arm is able to be carried would fall under "Arms?"

"Well regulated militia." "Well"..."Regulated"..."Militia." What was the reasoning behind these three words? At the time what was the context in which the term "well," "regulated," "militia" used? If each word had an intent, what did those three words, individual and collectively intent to mean?

SouthernBoy: True. If you trace the history of the 2A back to its origins, hundreds of years before our amendment was penned, specific arms that are mentioned as being required to be carried or as something that the people have a right to own are hand-held arms that would typically be used by one individual and targeted at another individual during combat or self-defense, such as swords and bows and arrows.

Clearly, the arms meant by the founders were the typical arms that an individual might have for personal use, but which could be used, in a pinch, as an individual arm in battle. Today's analogs would include such firearms as handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Logically, clubs and knives would be protected arms, too.

eye95 said:

Logically, clubs and knives would be protected arms, too.

Click to expand...

Because of their dual-utilitarian use?

A "well regulated militia" was one that was equipped properly and sufficiently to be an effective unit of battle.

The phrase has nothing to do with knowing how to drill, or there being rules and orders to keep the members "in line" or anything like that.

Since the militia was composed of the "common citizens", as opposed to enlisted troops paid and provisioned by the government, they came to assembly with whatever they owned. Many militia had rules about what equipment was minimally required of its members, See generally
http://www.suite101.com/content/forming-and-supplying-the-colonial-militia-a102045

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen

http://www.dallascitytroop.org/history.html

You will notice that even these articles disagree to some extent on just what arms the militia was to equip itself with - some say a .69 caliber musket, others say a fowling piece (shotgun) was OK. But pretty much overall they include a basic combat load-out of powder, shot, and edged piece of some sort. The militia had no need for bayonets, as they would not be charging massed ranks of hostile natives but going from defending the local fortification to hand-to-hand combat either inside the fort or out in the woods with the hostiles. You don't get a chance to reload in those circumstances, so an edged weapon - knife or tomahawk - becomes your means of offense and defense.

stay safe.

SouthernBoy said:

When evaluating any part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence, one must always make the best possible attempt at doing such with the original meaning and intent of the text. The Second Amendment's makes use of two items of interest which have caused much consternation and, for whatever reason, confusion in the minds of some. The use of the word, "arms" has been compared and matched to everything from long guns and hand guns, to tanks and even nuclear weapons. In fact, what it meant was an arm which was capable of being carried on or about the person.

The other part of the amendment which has created stirs for many generations is, " well regulated militia". This phrase does not refer to drilling and conducting field training on a frequent basis. What it meant at the time of its writing was, "to keep and make regular".

Hope this all helps.

Click to expand...

Are we not the well regulated militia? the America citizens?

And Tomahawks.

dedeye said:

Are we not the well regulated militia? the America citizens?

Click to expand...

males 18-45 are part of the unorganized militia at least as far as the militia act of 1903 is concerned. I'd say we are not well regulated though for the most part. Too few people own arms and are even close to proficient with their use. But yes you would be correct, militia are the citizens who take up arms.

Daylen said:

males 18-45 are part of the unorganized militia at least as far as the militia act of 1903 is concerned. I'd say we are not well regulated though for the most part. Too few people own arms and are even close to proficient with their use. But yes you would be correct, militia are the citizens who take up arms.

Click to expand...

80 million+ firearm owners (although I would like to see at least double that!) is the largest potential militia in the world. Most firearm owners I know do what I do, shoot on a regular basis...proficiency will not be an issue, although, there is always room for improvement of course...many of our waistbands might be a big issue. I have been fighting through bag of Doritos the past year:banghead:

W.S. Constitution

"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

U.S. Constitution

"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 WA. state Constitution seems to contradict itself, or am I wrong. It states that we have the right to bear arms in defense of..."state." Then it goes on to say that it is not an authorization. How could one have the right to bear arms unimpaired for security of state if it in the same line it says that it is not authorized?

Federal trumps state...are portions of the WA. state Constitution unConstitutional?

Beretta92FSLady said:

80 million+ firearm owners (although I would like to see at least double that!) is the largest potential militia in the world. Most firearm owners I know do what I do, shoot on a regular basis...proficiency will not be an issue, although, there is always room for improvement of course...many of our waistbands might be a big issue. I have been fighting through bag of Doritos the past year:banghead:

W.S. Constitution

"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

U.S. Constitution

"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 WA. state Constitution seems to contradict itself, or am I wrong. It states that we have the right to bear arms in defense of..."state." Then it goes on to say that it is not an authorization. How could one have the right to bear arms unimpaired for security of state if it in the same line it says that it is not authorized?

Federal trumps state...are portions of the WA. state Constitution unConstitutional?

Click to expand...

million is too few.

WA state seems a bit odd. I would argue that of course it is not an authorization, for freedom of association is a fundamental right that needs no authorization; although, constitutions are usually not written with tricky wording to fool people... Perhaps the authors of that constitution were the same ones that wrote the wording for my pistol permit.

Federal does not trump State.

Federal law, within the constraints of the enumerated powers was intended to be enforced, regardless of State laws to the contrary, but the federal Constitution does not "trump" the State constitutions. Let's remember that the federal government, through the Constitution derives its powers from a grant of power by the States.

Until relatively recently, the BoR did not in any way constrain the States. It was designed to constrain the federal government, hence many of the protections in the federal Constitution being repeated in the State constitutions.

Until McDonald, the 2A did not constrain the States. (Although I believe it should have, even without the 14th Amendment, based upon its wording.)

I really must speak out any statement like "Federal trumps tate." It leads to perpetuating the common misconception that our nation functions top-down. It was designed to operate bottom-up: the States derived their power from the People, and the federal government derived its power from the States.

Our Constitution does give some authority to the feds that they may constitutionally exercise over the States. But, remember, those powers not explicitly given to the federal government is reserved to the States and to the People.

"SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

SECTION 2 SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."

Yes, Washington state constitution states that the U.S. Constitution is "the supreme law of the land."

So Federal law X that is a right under federal law can be enforced in a state that says X is not a right. But X law in a state saying it is not a right can not be enforced if Federal X law states that it's a right.

Daylen said:

million is too few.

WA state seems a bit odd. I would argue that of course it is not an authorization, for freedom of association is a fundamental right that needs no authorization; although, constitutions are usually not written with tricky wording to fool people... Perhaps the authors of that constitution were the same ones that wrote the wording for my pistol permit.

Click to expand...

There's nothing odd about it. It simply says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and the state, but they don't have the right to organize private militias. Basically, the state may regulate the legality of militias and organized armed bodies.

Tawnos said:

There's nothing odd about it. It simply says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and the state, but they don't have the right to organize private militias. Basically, the state may regulate the legality of militias and organized armed bodies.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is odd. Why would the Constitution say you have the right to bear arms in defense of state, but not have the right to organize militia? What if the defense of state was a Constitutional issue and the state itself was what the individual(s) are defending against?

Are you telling me that the founders intended for you to fight in defense of the state but not Constitutionally do it by militia...doesn't seem odd that we would be constitutionally free to defend our state in such a way that would be completely ineffective.

The most effective way to fight in defense of the state is to form a militia. Each individual running around with their own independent plan would be for nothing but getting themselves overtaken quick.

In reference to Washington state Constitution, it is odd. The only reason I could think the wordage would be in there is in the interest of the state, if the state were the one waging war against our constitutional rights.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Carried about the person; what ever Arm is able to be carried would fall under "Arms?"

"Well regulated militia." "Well"..."Regulated"..."Militia." What was the reasoning behind these three words? At the time what was the context in which the term "well," "regulated," "militia" used? If each word had an intent, what did those three words, individual and collectively intent to mean?

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the "Well Regulated malitia" would be: (from memory and feel welcome to correct this)
Regularly trained male members of the community who were physically able aged 18-45 (Organized malitia) those >45 were part of the UNORGANIZED malitia.

This predated the "professional paid police force." They were to provide their OWN weapons, ball, a powder.

dedeye said:

Are we not the well regulated militia? the America citizens?

Click to expand...

Yes, but that was not what was meant by the phrase, "a well regulated militia". There most certain were, and are, existing militia. The phrase in question which appears in the Second Amendment means "to keep and make regular". This would equate a citizen having an arm in his possession AND having it at the ready for times when such was necessary and needed.

JoeSparky: There are posts earlier in the thread the explain the meaning of "well regulated militia" quite well.

I know your post does not say that police forces were intended to replace militias, but it is easily inferred that that is the meaning. While there is some overlap between what a militia might do and what police do (e.g. protecting a community from rioters), the goals of a police force and the militia are quite different.

The goals of a militia are protecting individuals, communities, States, and the nation from threats; and protecting the People from the government gone rogue. Police forces might have some role in the second two protections, but their focus is almost exclusively on the first two. Also, police forces will likely find their organization opposing the militia regarding the last goal, while many of its individual members may find themselves working with the militia against the police force.