Law School Discussion

I press it because I can see the potentially serious consequences. All firearm restrictions and safe guards will be at risk when the Supreme Court returns an influential decision. Save a congressional amendment, the only legal and constitutional work around for this Amendment is the review of the term 'Arm'.

Plastic pistols are legal. Military grade munitions and rockets would become legal for personal possessions. What the framers intended or did not intend, what weapons existed during the time of the constitution's birth, is of little consequence to the reality of the situation.

I love guns. I want a gun. But I do not want to make it easier for a loon or crazy person or someone who is a habitual felon to shoot up a school, business, post office, and what have you.

Is ammunition a weapon without a trigger mechanism? That seems debatable. It surely does not explicitly speak of ammunition like your definition does.

Everything.

No need to thank me; the way I see it now, the only way to legally/constitutionally limit the right to bearing arms without an amendment is limiting ammunition. The term 'arm' is ambiguous which makes it potentially dangerous. Hence I choose to consider arms and ammunition to be two separate categories.

As the Second Amendment is written, all limitations on bearing and keeping arms are pretty much invalid. That is a bit worrisome. I think that instead of focusing on the construction and grammatical intricacies of the Second Amendment, we should re-evaluate the definition of 'Arm'.

For search and seizure, we have a little thing called 'reasonable' that changes the whole name of the game.

Then ammunition is fine as long as it's part of the "arming device" or rather, loaded? So it's storing ammunition outside a weapon you have a problem with?

My problem with the Second Amendment is that I know that 'arms' is a broad term that includes ammunition, but because the Second Amendment prohibits the infringement of this right in any way, we cannot legally prevent the purchase of such items by mentally unstable or unfit individuals. I feel that there must be some loophole for limiting the acquisition of such tools to people of reasonable mind.