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.
Somebody needs to read the site guidelines.
I’d suggest starting with the FAQ and then moving on to Terms of Service.
Titanium is a good choice too. I actually met a guy once while blacksmithing who carried titanium knuckles. Weird guy, but then a lot of people who blacksmith (myself included) tend to be odd folk
This is not about the Second Amendment. The story at CNN is not about a brass-knuckle ban being struck down by a court because of the Constitution. That’s not what happened.
Again not proud of this but as a guy who used to get into fights regularly or rather had fights foisted upon me, just about any blunt object is a great weapon as long as you can grab it and hit your attacker with it.
Honestly people brass knuckles are pretty much just Mall Ninja fodder and no one who took defense seriously unless they knew they would be in close quarters combat with preemptive timing and that they could quickly knock out their opponent would ever have such a thing.
An expanding steel baton however is an incredible weapon, and I think those might actually be legal?
I used to keep a Japanese wooden boken in my car, because I lived in an area where people occasionally got shot and stabbed, and I had it because I had a Mall ninja phase as a teenager. Basically just a large blunt object is probably the best weapon of all.
I swear I’m actually a peaceful guy. I’m the only blacksmith I know in 2 blacksmithing organizations that really isn’t into making knives, when everyone else is. Im a weird worldly nerd, it explains a lot.
