What are the legal limits and interpretations of the 2nd Amendment?

[nismaratwork]

Oh... and if you count using a sling as "throwing rocks", then here are numbers that might dishearten your faith in the musket. Remember, mobility, concealibility, range, and reload time.

http://slinging.org/index.php?page=sling-ranges

note, this is not for modern slingshots. example:

Saulius Pusinskas 8/08 Braided, leather pouch Stone 70g Pseudo Figure 8 90cm 220m

OK... so even at half his record breaking distance that's killing accuracy outside of period musket range... and that's using a weapon so old its origins are uncertain.

 

[nismaratwork]

The armies of their day were (largely) civilians - correct?

No, the colonists were by definition, mostly "civilian". Armies at the time tended either to be wedded to the state or mercenaries. The concept of a militia would be something between our modern version of a police force, and an army, but always in "reserve" mode. I'd add the average "civilian" dealt with hardship and had skill with SOME kind of ranged weapon to survive. That doesn't bear much semblance to the modern civilian, or even the modern soldier.

Why do you ask?

 

[turbo]

Here is an annotated (and probably only partial) history of case-law on the 2nd amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

Some of my interest in this matter is due to years of researching, consigning, and offering antique firearms at auction. There are a wide range of camps willing to spar over the 2nd amendment, and I see them broken down (broadly) this way.

There are people who interpret the 2nd amendment as protecting the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
There are people who interpret the 2nd amendment as being a limit on the new federal government so that it could not restrict the states' ability to maintain militias.
There are people who see a blend of these issues, and yet others that combine this with a willingness for states or cities to further restrict or control gun-ownership.

Looking at a historical/practical view, groups in conflict (army vs militia, army vs citizenry, militia vs citizenry) were severely constrained by the types of weapons that they could access, which even up through the Civil War were mostly smooth-bores. Smooth-bores are inaccurate with limited range, and are better-suited to fighting between massed groups than rifles are. Smooth-bores loaded much more quickly than muzzle-loading rifles, so rifles were often relegated to sniping from behind some type of cover. How could these realities have swayed the intentions of our founding fathers? Would the founders have believed that we would always need militias or massed citizenry to fight this type of warfare given that rifles were very expensive and rare? I hate to get into too much technical detail as opposed to law, but it goes directly to intent.

 

[WhoWee]

No, the colonists were by definition, mostly "civilian". Armies at the time tended either to be wedded to the state or mercenaries. The concept of a militia would be something between our modern version of a police force, and an army, but always in "reserve" mode. I'd add the average "civilian" dealt with hardship and had skill with SOME kind of ranged weapon to survive. That doesn't bear much semblance to the modern civilian, or even the modern soldier.

Weren't these reserve forces equipped nearly as well as the military - many battle-hardened from the war? I would think (in that time frame) the person who didn't have a gun was unusual? As for technology - guns were needed for survival (hunting) for some - the most modern guns would have been desired by the public.

 

[turbo]

Weren't these reserve forces equipped nearly as well as the military - many battle-hardened from the war? I would think (in that time frame) the person who didn't have a gun was unusual? As for technology - guns were needed for survival (hunting) for some - the most modern guns would have been desired by the public.

Close. Britain couldn't afford to keep a standing army all through the colonies, so all able-bodied men were required to train with military weapons and serve at the pleasure of the Crown. They weren't "reserve forces" - they were subjects of Britain who trained regularly and were pressed into service whenever needed - leaving their farms and businesses behind.

Expeditions against the French along the Hudson River and in Nova Scotia, for instance were overwhelmingly manned by Massacusetts colonists that were pressed into service. By the time the colonists decided to raid their militia armories and secure their British-supplied muskets, powder, ball, etc, many of them had many years of military experience, often in some very rough terrain.

 

[Evo]

Seth Meyers is very, very mistaken. Muskets were not only very powerful, the odds of surviving being shot back then were far, far less than today.

this is off topic, but people didn't walk around carrying muskets. And new medical technology had nothing to do with a gun's power.

In fact Alexander Hamilton was killed by Vice President Aaron Burr in a pistol duel. I think he probably would have survived if Burr had thrown a rock instead.

And this was at very close range and is totally irrelevant.

It seems this thread has run it's course.