The New Supreme Court Case That Could Take Away Your 2A

[WY_Not]

Pretty sure that citizen and soldier alike used quite a few weapons during the Revolutionary War that were not standard issue or even typical. Many brought their own weapons and gear with them when they joined. This nonsense from the SCOTUS and others saying that a protected weapon needs to be something that is in general use by the military or is what a civilian would typically bring to military service is something made up whole cloth by those people on the bench.

Just because something is less than lethal does not make it any less of a weapon that is protected from gov by the 2nd Amendment.

[WhyNot]

OmG!!

You mean, all my ''protecting devices'' in my signature line possibly are illegal to deploy

Shocking!

[eye95]

OmG!!

You mean, all my ''protecting devices'' in my signature line possibly are illegal to deploy

Shocking!

Depending on how and why you deployed them, quite possibly yes.

Depending on where you carry it, the mere carry of the sling-shot could be a violation.

The 2A is not designed to protect your use of an arm. Nor does it define everything you might want it to as an arm.

Officer: Why are you operating this truck on the highway without a license?

Driver: This isn't just a truck. It is a weapon I have with me to defend myself in the event of an attack. It is my 2A right to have this arm with me!

[Mustang380gal]

This is turning nonsensical.

A truck may be used to defend one's life, but its primary purpose is to be a means of conveyance.

If you can keep a set of arms, and bear a set of arms, and one must be "well regulated" meaning properly trained, then its use is assumed. Otherwise, there is no point of any of the above.

[eye95]

This is turning nonsensical.

A truck may be used to defend one's life, but its primary purpose is to be a means of conveyance.

If you can keep a set of arms, and bear a set of arms, and one must be "well regulated" meaning properly trained, then its use is assumed. Otherwise, there is no point of any of the above.

I was illustrating absurdity with absurdity. It is just as absurd to say you are carrying a slingshot for personal protection.

[WY_Not]

Why? Slingshots can be quite deadly. They are not current issue but they were a weapon of war used by many an army as well as a way to put food on the table as well as a toy.

[Mustang380gal]

I was illustrating absurdity with absurdity. It is just as absurd to say you are carrying a slingshot for personal protection.

Well, part of the list may be joking, but a sling shot is nothing to sneeze at. It still launches a projectile which can hurt.

There was a certain Philistine that found out what a sling and a stone can do. He did not live long enough to appreciate it, though.

[WhyNot]

good grief....seriously....lighten up

ITS

A

SIG

LINE

That (seriously) pokes fun at S.D. equip

[eye95]

good grief....seriously....lighten up

ITS

A

SIG

LINE

That (seriously) pokes fun at S.D. equip

My first post about it was replying to the CONTENT of your post.

My second post as replying to the snarky reply by another poster to my first one.

In reply to the other posters:

Yes, a slingshot CAN be used for self-defense. Cars Have been used in self-defense. Neither is an arm as the Framers intended.

Once again, if you trace the historical understanding that the Framers would have had, by "arms" they m ant the type of weapon that a civilian might carry and then bring with him to militia service. Today's analogs would include handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, and many other individually carried and deployed weapons that would be useful in combat. It would not include slingshots or vehicles.

That is not to say you have no Right to carry any other kind of weapon. I am just discussing what the word "arms" means in the 2A. There are other GGONIYP Rights and the 9A which incorporates them.

[GroundChuk]

If I could, I'd like to have my sword with me as well. I can carry a firearm, but not my sword. You may ask, "why a sword?". Well, a sword never runs out of ammo, and never jams.

Not that it would be practical, but I can't really carry it in the vehicle, unless I'm going somewhere it would be used, like the Ren Fair.

At least that is what I understand. Having a sword laying around in the vehicle, sheathed even, could be problems.

However, I used to carry a large Bowie, the Bowie Undertaker, on my front seat and was pulled over once and the cops saw it, but nothing came of it. So I guess it's a crap shoot.

Here is the knife. It was sheathed of course when the cops saw it, but they had to have seen the handle. This is a knife....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJVxRgQBiok" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bignflnut]

Well, part of the list may be joking, but a sling shot is nothing to sneeze at. It still launches a projectile which can hurt.

There was a certain Philistine that found out what a sling and a stone can do. He did not live long enough to appreciate it, though.

Just to bolsterthat point:

Police in northern India will soon use slingshots loaded with chilli powder and marbles to tackle unruly protesters in the world's largest democracy, an inspector said on Wednesday.

Not content with water cannon, tear gas and traditional wooden sticks or lathis, police in Haryana state close to New Delhi will turn to the slingshots as a "non-lethal way" to control violent crowds.

*Who doesn't want to grow up and be a slingshot sniper in India?*

[charliej47]

+1