[TheForge] Criminal Background Check

[Andrew Vida]

Bruce Freeman wrote:
> Andy,
> 
> It's not really the "infringing" part that I mean to question. It's
> the definition of "arms".

     I know where you're going with this and I can tell you that the 
argument fails.  But let us see what you have in mind.
> 
> In 1776, a musket or rifle was really not that powerful a weapon. 

	Wanna step in front of one?  Didn't think so.

 > The
> firing rate was perhaps twice a minute, IF someone was guarding you
> while you reloaded.  Without the bayonet, an army of musketmen would
> not have been so effective.
> 
> So fast forward to today and we find that "arms"  could include fully
> automatic weapons with any sort of load.  Somehow I don't think that's
> what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

    It is precisely what they had in mind.  This question was resolved 
in US v. Miller in 1939 where the upshot was that "the people" may 
possess any weapon suitable as a militia weapon.  That would include 
tanks and aircraft, etc.  It does not include nukes, AFAIK.