| > I'm saying if you punt on tanks, you aren't actually an absolutist about the right to bear arms. Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon." The word "arms" in the right to keep and bear arms explicitly meant weapons that could be carried by a single infantryman. It was never about (and still isn't about) tanks, or cannon, or warships, or nukes. So no, you don't have to be committed to allowing tanks to be fully keen on the right to keep and bear arms. (if you still doubt this, focus on the word "bear". You can't "bear" a tank, if anything a tank bears you.) ( https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/iii-what-arms-meant-circa-17... ) That said, it actually happens to be totally legal for private citizens to own a tank in most countries, including the US. They're expensive, get terrible gas mileage, probably not street-legal to drive on the freeway, unlikely to fit in your garage and the neighbors are bound to complain if you fire the main gun...but you totally could own one (and drive it around your own private property) if so inclined. |
I'm also curious about the constitutional ramifications of the ban on civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured after 1986. Could any class of small arms be gradually banned by specifying a date of manufacture cutoff for legality in a similar way? Seems contrary to a plain reading of the 2a to phase out weapons this way but I know that my layman's plain reading is worth very little here.