12

Almost certainly, there is no such right. It's illegal under 18 USC 831 to possess "nuclear material" without specific authorization. 18 USC 832 forbids the possession of a "radiological weapon". If there is intent to use the device to cause death, serious bodily injury, or damage to property or the environment, that's also a violation of 18 USC 2332i. ...


11

The Supreme Court considered and rejected some related interpretations in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The entire opinion, and the dissents, are well worth reading, if you wish to get a clearer understanding of how the Court has most recently interpreted the Second Amendment. A few specific comments: "The Second Amendment protects ...


11

Not all weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. There is a "dangerous and unusual weapons" exclusionary clause established by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which excludes pretty much anything that's incredibly dangerous (obviously we wouldn't want our people to have the right to keep bombs in their house) or not considered a ...


11

Sure: No Constitutional rights are totally unencumbered. Even natural rights like the "right to life" are legally "infringed" through various theories (e.g., self-defense, capital punishment, warfare). The Second Amendment has been interpreted as a right to keep and bear weapons that would reasonably be used in self-defense or in military service. You don'...


8

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia: Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited ... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt ...


6

The problem with the proposal is that the Second Amendment doesn't specifically protect the right to bear guns – the word it uses is "arms". Restricting sale of bullets or gunpowder is just as much a restriction on the right to bear arms as restricting sale of guns. Likewise, freedom of the press doesn't refer to just the freedom to use a wine press for ...


6

When understanding jurisprudence and laws that implicate the second amendment I generally find it helpful to reference the old United States v. Miller case. Essentially, the Supreme Court decided to read the second amendment as prohibiting infringements on keeping or bearing arms with some reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a militia. ...


5

Illegal weapons Weapons are defined and are made illegal by statute. In many states, it is illegal to possess brass knuckles. For example, California penal code 12020(a)(1) makes it illegal to possess "any metal knuckles", "writing pen knife", "any leaded cane", among other things. I don't know of any state where it is illegal to pick up a stick, or keys, ...


5

The authority you are looking for is District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In this judgement, SCOTUS explained limitations of the second amendment. There is extensive historical analysis, but for your purpose, this is the important clause: [T]he right to keep arms involves, necessarily, the right to use such arms for all the ordinary ...


5

No. The intent of the draft was to protect those who objected to bearing arms for religious/moral reasons from being forced by the government to bear arms against their will (essentially making any draft that didn't have consciencious objector allowance from being Constitutional). The line was removed at drafting because it was redundant: The First ...


5

Let's back up. It's premature to say that SB 8 "avoids the constitutional restrictions on banning abortions". The constitutionality of SB 8 has not been resolved; the Supreme Court said so explicitly (page 2). In fact there is good reason to think that is unconstitutional under existing interpretation of the Constitution per Roe v. Wade and the ...


4

The US has, at several times in history, had federal laws forcing ordinary people to bear arms: the military draft. The draft was upheld as legal despite many challenges, even in the absence of a declared war (e.g. during the Vietnam war; Wikipedia cites United States v. Holmes, 387 F.2d 781 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 936 (1968).) The draft, as ...


4

As discussed in the answer to another question, Is crypto legal in a weapon-free zone?, just because something is listed as a munition doesn't make it a weapon. The definition of munition includes "weapons and ammunition" but not exclusively so. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) defines what can and cannot be exported without a special ...


4

Volokh commented on this. There is no 2nd Amendment issue, nor does federal law. It may be illegal in some states, depending on whether age is included in public accommodation anti-discrimination laws. For instance, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§46a-64 says (a) It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section: (1) To deny any person within the ...


4

The police are mistaken because they don't understand immigration law. Usually, the first step to resolve this problem would be to explain the situation in a letter to or telephone call with the town attorney, elevating it from a police officer who has no training in citizenship and naturalization paperwork, to an attorney, who should either know better, or ...


3

This article surveys the law, as of 2014. The answer is "yes or no, depending on which circuit". In US v. Chafin 423 F. App’x 342, the court decided that although the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, it does not necessarily give rise to a corresponding right to sell a firearm drawing an analogy to US v. 12 200-Foot Reels ...


3

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the US Supreme Court held that "[District of Columbia's] ban on handgun possession in the home" and "prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense" violate the Second Amendment. This holding was later applied to states in McDonald v. ...


3

If you cannot legally purchase a gun in Utah due to any restriction, such as residency, and you engage someone else to knowingly buy or gift you a gun (such as a "straw man" purchase from a dealer or private sale), that is illegal. From the same link you posted (my emphasis): Can I buy a firearm as a gift for someone? Yes, as long as the receiver is ...


3

Each and every time the Supreme Court has addressed the second amendment, it has upheld that it is constitutionally permissible to have prohibitions on dangerous and unusual weapons. Nuclear weapons meet this standard. For a prohibition to be permissible, the weapon must be both dangerous and unusual. Any weapon used for offense or defense has to be ...


3

Short Answer if you use medical marijuana prescribed by a doctor. Are you automatically an unlawful user of a controlled substance and cannot possess, use, buy, sell, gift, or transfer firearms? Basically yes. If you use medical marijuana prescribed by a doctor on a regular basis you are a prohibited person pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), and you are ...


3

The preface has colored the application of the amendment. For example, without the preface it is hard to imagine something like the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) being upheld as constitutional. The NFA was upheld by SCOTUS in United States v. Miller specifically on the opinion that the Second Amendment does not protect a citizen's right to weapons ...


3

Because that’s not what Miller says The court evaluated and expanded Miller in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) at p.52: Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordi­ nary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that ...


3

One can only be certain when a case is decided by SCOTUS, and so far, no law has attempted to ban the publication of manuals for firearms. Jackson v. City of S.F., 746 F.3d 953 gives good reason to think that the court would find such a ban unconstitutional. There is an analogous line of thinking regarding ammunition regulations, where some municipalities ...


2

Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be ...


2

Absent the italicized text, it is possible that some government would have tried to pass a law prohibiting any group of people from gathering, training, and generally forming themselves into a well-regulated militia. The absence of such laws would thus be an answer to the question. Militia-dissolving/preventing laws like that might have been not covered ...


2

The regulation is legal because it hasn't been overturned by legislation or invalidated by the judiciary. The premise of the regulation goes something like this: There is a compelling public interest in preventing unsafe goods from being sold to consumers. Guns are inherently dangerous consumer goods The AG has identified "safety features" that, the office ...


2

I just came across the illuminating decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Montalvo v. State. (Of course this is only law in New Jersey, but NJ is known as one of the more anti-weapon states in the U.S., and the decision does reference the SCOTUS decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.) The ruling maintains that outside of the home the elements of ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible