• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

California's 9th fed Circuit gone insane.

Not open for further replies.

Realtor MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Mar 28, 2009
while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protection
against both external threat and internal tyranny, the recognition
of the individual’s right in the Second Amendment,
and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the
states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of
weaponry. All weapons are not “arms” within the meaning of
the Second Amendment, so, for example, no individual could
sensibly argue that the Second Amendment gives them a right
to have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons in their home
for self-defense.

Here's the good news and the bad news. The document goes on to say that the difficulty will be in determining what is/is not reasonable regulation.
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Jun 12, 2006
Brockton, MA
I believe that if you look (i had it once and cant find the link)

but "ARMS" were defined as weapons common to the infantry.

pistols, long arms, blades, ect.

Cannons, mortars were not "common" to the infantry.

So the implication was that if the army can carry a side arm and a M4, then it would be reasonable that a civilian could as well.

However, an infantry man can surely not carry a nuke, tank, howizer, ect, so there for, those could be restricted.

although the argument for an RPG could be made [wink]
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom