California laws regarding weapons vs. The 2nd Amendment of the U.S Constitution?

B

Brad

New member
My question is: why are guns permitted under certain circumstances, but weapons that aren't firearms or knives such as the Nunchaku isn't permitted?

The 2nd Amendment states that citizens of the U.S has the right to bear arms, which is important because of ability to defend against burglary/robbery. A gun can injure or kill people at far range, which is very, but Nunchaku could only be used to defend at close range. But certain laws in California outlaws certain weapons such as the Nunchaku.

My intentions behind this is not meant for violence, because I don't understand why certain types of guns are legal with permits, and contracts.
 
The right to bear arms was originally intended to accommodate standing militias comprised of civilians who lived at home. "Arms" is a military term. This has been expanded over the years to bring into conversation the right to bear "weapons" to defend oneself.

In The Federalist, No. 24, one of a series of papers written after the Revolutionary War to convince the colonists to ratify the Constitution, founding father Alexander Hamilton spoke of the right to bear arms in the sense of an "unorganized militia," which consisted of the "people-at-large." He suggested that this militia could mobilize against a standing army if the army usurped the government's authority or if it supported a tyrannical government. Such a standing army, declared Hamilton, could "never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow-citizens" (The Federalist, No. 29).

Overall, four basic beliefs were assimilated into the Second Amendment: the right of the individual to possess arms, the fear of a professional army, the dependence on militias regulated by the individual states, and the control of the military by civilians.
 
There is a case currently before the Supreme Court, Maloney v. Rice, which is challenging the constitutionality of that ban in New York (the other state that forbids them):
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~jmm257/mvc.html
 
There is a case currently before the Supreme Court, Maloney v. Rice, which is challenging the constitutionality of that ban in New York (the other state that forbids them):
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~jmm257/mvc.html
 
Back
Top