Quote:
Originally posted by mr krinkle
mbossman2 thank you, I know some people who think that the Right to Bear Arms means they should be able to possess any weapon that the Military uses.
How do you feel about that?
|
That is a very good question that has yet to answered legally as LawyerRon can attest. I am definitely not a lawyer but here is how I see it. The 2nd Amendment gives the individual the right to bear (own) arms. At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified by the states, this was generally understood to mean individual weapons as opposed to crew served weapons. The Colonials kept their individual weapons at home. They owned them; they were not issued by the government. I don't find many instances where they kept cannon, siege mortars, etc at their homes. These were generally kept in a common armory. These are crew served weapons requiring more than one person to operate them.
Today's howitzers, .50 caliber machine guns, vulcan cannon, etc. fall in the category of crew served weapons. Even individual fired surface to air missles such as the Stinger are not issued to soldiers as individual weapons; but are issued as the tactical situation demands. Therefore, I don't have a probem with laws that prohibit private ownership of these weapons. The firearms act of 1932 prohibited the average citizen from owning or possessing a weapon capable of full automatic fire. Thus, the "Tommy gun" of the Roaring '20's" was banned from private ownership. Exceptions to this ban include holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.