The Heller case touched on regulations on safe storage of explosives from the colonial era, making it a crime to store it on the second floor of a building due to the severe fire hazard. It struck the court that similar regulations on safe storage and proper use of any other weapon and ammunition can be constitutionally enforced.

No storing your Raytheon SM-3 missile in your garden shed, and no firing it in your suburban back yard, in other words.

What cannot be constitutionally enforced is criminal penalties for _simple possession_ of arms of any type.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Vin Suprynowicz discussed this point in his June 15, 1997 column. I encourage everyone inclined to throw out the “nuclear weapons” red herring to read it:

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1997/le970615-06.html
=====
“How about the president of France? He has nuclear weapons. Do you or I know for a fact that he isn’t some kind of secret, unbalanced speed freak? Didn’t they just elect a bunch of giddy Socialists, over there? How about the president of the Ukraine?
“We don’t know these guys from Adam, yet we implicitly trust them, because they ‘work for a government.’
“What nonsense. ”
=====

No offense SIR !

( But you do of course understand that as a Marine Corporal, I still outrank you Unless you were a MARINE Captain that is… )

“Some folks have mentioned the inherent instability of military explosives. I myself have cooked food using a small square of military C4 plastic explosive. Not unstable. AT ALL.”

In the hands of people who know what they’re doing, any explosive is safe and stable… But what about those people who DON’T know what they’re doing ? We can’t outlaw stupidity.. and there are plenty of idiots around… and I don’t want them playing around with this stuff in a residential area where my kids could be the victims of what I’m sure was fun to them…

There are plenty of things that are outlawed because they pose a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the community. While it’s true that the govt does tend to go overboard here, protecting my kids is indeed one of their PROPER functions…

Is that unreasonable ?

It’s not you that I’m worried about sergeant !

If it is something that can be “allowed” or “prohibited” for law-abiding citizens by operation of the law, then it’s not a “right.”

How about a sensible law allowing sensible people the right to be secure in their homes from warrant-less searches by police? They don’t need to pass a law to “allow” that, the right exists independent of any laws.

If the Second Amendment says “. . . shall not be INFRINGED,” WHY do citizens need to REGISTER their guns with the Police Department?

All to make it easy to collect guns from citizens in the future, as was done in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.

The fight isn’t over.

I hope you’ll stick around and continue to grace us with your thoughtful commentary.

Speaking as a veteran (20 years) social studies teacher in a public high school and as a former social studies Teacher of the Year (for my school), AND as a former US Army Officer, let me address this one:

“Well REGULATED MILITIA” A lot of folks seem to think this is referring to some sort of national guard as we understand that organization today. Yet that organization wasn’t even created until right before our involvement in WWI. In the days pertaining to the American Revolution, MILITIA meant ALL the people, bearing their own weapons. This fact is currently reflected in the state constitutions of several states. For example my home state of Florida has the organized militia and the UNORGANIZED militia ready for call up in the Constitution. This was actually used unofficially after Hurricane Andrew when it was a common sight to see citizens patrolling their own neighborhoods with slung AR15s or AK47s to deter looting and often chatting with local police — the cops took no action. WELL REGULATED doesn’t refer to a legal term of art, it is concerned with military logistics: Similar arms and ammunition.

“KEEP AND BEAR” equals OWN AND CARRY.

“ARMS” is a phrase that is quite interesting and it is no accident that it is used by the Founding Fathers. Do you think that the FIRST rifles were flintlock rifles or the sort used in the American Revolution? In face firearms technology had been evolving for over 300 years by that point. It would evolve again during the course of the war as the first rifled barrels started showing up, offering vastly increased range and accuracy. A new kind of soldier appeared with this new wrinkle: SNIPERS. That kind of marksman still makes his presence felt on today’s battlefields. This is why the UZI, the M4, the M60 and SAW and other types of military firearms fall under the 2nd Amendment. If you refer to the writings of the Founding Fathers, even in the Federalist Papers (#46) you will see clearly that if the infantry has it, the PEOPLE must have it too but in greater numbers! Does this include things like artillery or armed aircraft? Probably not under the 2nd Amendment. It seems clear that the weapons probably must be limited to those that can be handled by a single man rather than those requiring a team like a mortar. This why I am certain the 2nd covers my 1911A1 45 pistol today AND my hand PHASER tomorrow.

However, the artillery and other weapons of military might are covered under the Constitutional letters of Marque. Back in those days, this is what allowed the formation of the Privateers to prey upon British shipping. Just how do you think the private military companies (PMCs) like BLACKWATER get to operate helicopter gunships and much heavier weapons like vehicle mounted (electric) mini-guns? It’s all constitutional and I’m certain these so called PMCs all agree to not operate in regions or under employment conditions that are inimical to US interests. A Letter of Marque.

Where do you draw the line? I’m guessing nuclear weapons, nerve agent or biotoxins. But under one guise or another everything else is allowed. Using a letter of Marque, a company like BLACKWATER (or as they’re currently known in the military or merc community: THE KNIGHTS WHO SAY XE! If you remember Monty Python) could operate an aircraft carrier if they could afford one. Including all the aircraft and ordnance of said carrier.

“Ordinary citizens” shall not be debarred the use of any squad level military weapon under the 2nd Amendment. Some folks have mentioned the inherent instability of military explosives. I myself have cooked food using a small square of military C4 plastic explosive. Not unstable. AT ALL. What about so called “napalm?” Easily concocted using TIDE detergent and gasoline. The military uses the M110 fuel thickener, but it amounts to the same thing.

The real purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep our own government from gettin’ too big for their britches as seems to be the case, currently. No wonder the liberals are all exercised over the 2nd Amendment. They want to hang onto their power. Armed citizens are definitely a threat to tyranny.