Yeah. While it never hurts to remind people that the whole system is racist, that doesn’t automatically invalidate whatever law we’re discussing. No one is going to suggest we repeal murder laws because black people are disproportionately like to be convicted (even though they are).
Because “brass knuckles used to assault innocent people” is a real and documented phenomenon, whereas “brass knuckles used as a defensive weapon” is still a hypothetical.
Well, I could tell you an anecdote about a woman I knew back in college who used a pair to slug a guy who was trying to take advantage of her after a frat party, but it’s just that; an anecdote.
I know that it happened because I listened to her story, where she admitted that she’d just gotten really lucky with her punch… and then that following Monday, the perp in question showed up to our lab class, late wearing dark sunglasses to cover up the huge shiner he was sporting. But no one ever reported anything to my knowledge, and no official complaints were registered, so there’s nothing on record.
It seems the woman in question didn’t want to deal with the misogynistic judgement that automatically comes with even an attempted sexual assault, nor did she want to be penalized for defending herself with a weapon that wasn’t legal in the state at that time. The would-be rapist likely didn’t want to have to explain to the authorities what his intentions had been, or to admit that he was bested by a woman whom he’d been trying to overpower. (Nevertheless, his rep as a predator still preceded him for the rest of his time at my alma mater.)
Because of the questionable legality of certain weapons and the unquestionable disparity of the US legal and penal system, you’re unlikely to find much if any concrete documentation that those aforementioned weapons are ‘useful for self defense.’
Of course, those precedents are completely destroyed by the simple fact that the USMC issued brass knuckle weapons as arms for soldiers in WWI making them officially arms of a soldier. Simply put, it’s not hard to find ignorant judges.
And you will find just as many upholding the idea that arms are not specific to the duty of your soldier.
OK - Fair point that brass knuckle attacks are real.
What also is a real thing is people getting in trouble for carrying a pointy bit of plastic to feel safer. Can we at least acknowledge that?
Any resistance to an occupying force will probably be an underground “resistance”, not pitched battles of men lining up to shoot redcoats in the woods.
Small, silent, concealable weapons would absolutely be useful resisting an occupying force.
Really stretching the definition of “a well regulated militia” here.
“I insist we stick to the legal definition of ‘arms’ as they relate to rulings on the second amendment! Wait, not THOSE rulings…”
And you’re stretching your interpretation of the constitution since the supreme court has definitively ruled for personal right to own firearms
The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday
Needs a taser.
Talk about your unwelcome immigrants!
The court has made no such ruling protecting the right to own brass knuckles, however.
Why are you mansplaining the law to me? The constitution says arms, not firearms.
Yes, and courts have interpreted that to mean specific kinds of arms which exclude nukes and brass knuckles alike.
You apparently disagree with court rulings that say brass knuckles aren’t protected. Likewise, I disagree with court rulings affirming many gun rights.
I think you misunderstand my argument.
These laws were specifically enacted because of a fear of gang violence, here “gang” being used in the traditional “any non white youths” manner. The law has never been about protecting people, it was about giving police officers another reason to duck over black and Hispanic people.
When a law is specifically created to mess with minority people then it is the responsibility of non racist people to call for it’s elimination.
“During the early ‘50s, the white middle class became obsessed with the alleged danger posed by gangs of ethnic minorities allegedly roving America’s cities. That’s one reason for suburbia and the hysteria is what led to the Switchblade Knife Act, as well as the bans by individual states.”
Note that this is from Gizmodo in 2015, before the… Gawker unpleasantness.
This deals with switchblades, but it fairly much covers all banned knives and martial arts dodads…
I’m pretty sure if tasers had existed in the 19th century, they would have added it. Just because.
Amendments are designed to prohibit the government from certain actions not to enumerate what you and I can and cannot do. Therefore, the ruling would have to be that the 2nd does not cover them and not that they are protected. They are protected until SCOTUS says they are not.
Brass knuckle advocates are certainly welcome to make that argument in court.
For the time being the courts have affirmed that laws banning brass knuckles are not unconstitutional.
Some lower courts while other courts say they are protected. Therefore, to argue that they are not is to ignore the nature of amendments and the courts that support those amendments.
I see that you do not understand how the constitution works. They are protected until SCOTUS says they are not. The right to own them need not be defended. What must be defended or tested in court is the legitimacy of laws banning them since they are arms and the government is not allowed to create laws abridging the right to bear them.
I can point you to a few 5th grade civics teachers if you need help understanding how this all works.