Well, it's obvious that they will never take it literally. That would give us the right to own our own WMD's if we so chose. One set of reasonable restrictions that I don't think anyone would object to would be a prohibition on strategic weapons, (ICBM's, bombers, etc...). While these are arms, they are not weapons that one would associate with a militia. Personally, I would draw the line at explosive ordinance and crew served weapons, but it's very hard to argue that those aren't legitimate militia weapons as well.
So common sense dictates that if they find an individual right they will have to draw the line somewhere or permit the government to do it for them and somehow I doubt they will be nearly as lenient as I would be.
I don’t know about you, but I’d draw the line at WMD. If some guy wants to put 8 Brownings in his P-51 Mustang, I don’t see a reason he can’t do it. If you own a larger than two-seat helo, I don’t see a reason you can’t mount an M60 in it.
Mortars, rockets, M203, GE cannons, all protected under the Second Amendment.
The line to draw is most easily around the definitions of “arms” versus other kinds of weapons and “ordnance”. I think it is reasonable to say that the founders used the word “arms” intentionally. Not “weapons” or some such. “Arms” can be understood to mean the sort of weapons that are carried and used by a single soldier. It wouldn’t include cannon or heavy weapons, but it would include whatever is typically carried by an infantryman.
Not sure how they’d have looked at grenades, though. I might guess that the founders wouldn’t consider them arms. But I’m willing to negotiate.
From a practical standpoint there simply will be certain “reasonable” restrictions however. Prisoners *in prison* do not have a right to arms. Persons certified as dangerously insane should be denied arms, as well as liberty. I’m OK with convicted felons being denied as long as there is a process for reinstatement. Some restrictions are more reasonable than others. Anything beyond these should be fought, and aggressively.
Nomatter what the court says, I think it is doubtful that we’ll get machine guns back, even though I think we should under the 2nd amendment. We’ll likely just have to live with that.
The second amendment was written to secure the individual right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated state Militia from federal infringement. If Congress refused to arm the Militias (under Article I, Section 8), Congress could not stop individuals from arming themselves to form a well regulated state Militia.
"Arms" are defined by each state. How individuals are to keep and bear them is up to each state. If Congress infinges on any of these areas, the state has standing to challenge the law in federal court.
Simple. Clean. No guesswork. No restrictions. No justifications.
When the second amendment is interpreted correctly.
The individual right to keep and bear arms outside of a Militia is protected by state constitutions. The State Supreme Court will define "arms", "keep" and "bear" for the citizens of that particular state based on their interpretation of the state constitution.
WMD is where the line gets drawn .... back in the day we had private citizens with warships. If you can afford and crew them, own em.