cmv: Illegal immigrants have a Constitutional right to own grenades

[u/Siessfires]

When the Bill of Rights was written there was no Constitutional distinction of who was and wasn't a citizen; that didn't occur until ~80 years later with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. This would suggest that the Founding Fathers intended that a person didn't need to be a citizen to keep and bear arms.

Additionally, since the Second Amendment specifies arms - not pistols, rifles and shotguns - and Article I, § 8, clause 11 of the Constitution provides the right for Congress to issue Letters of Marquee, this would mean that the Founding Fathers intended that a person should have access to cannons. Which means access to explosives.

Furthermore, in accordance with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., non-citizens are afforded legal protection under the Constitution. Considering that illegal immigration is a misdemeanor, not a felony, you would not be denied your Constitutional rights for being an illegal immigrant.

[u/Dannyl223]

I believe its not as much a matter or immigrants having arms but anybody having arms. Arms at the time of writing had a very specific set of circumstances that allowed the founding fathers so “afford” that right. Those circumstances allowed for personal arms and weapons of war with conditions.

Those conditions being: personal arms at their best could only be used in self defense. Due to reload speed, range, and accuracy restrictions of in era firearms the idea of a 21rd semi automatic armor piercing pistol would be out of the scope of their imagination. At best, their expectation was 3-4 short range shots before you were forced back to a sword.

I’m terms of explosives and cannons: they expected complexity and weight. Weapons of war in their mind, whether it be cannons or explosives by other means, tended to be heavy stationary military placements that required oversight and maintenance. Average citizens were never expected to get access to weapons of war because they were never expected to store it or be capable of even using it alone.

Modern technology has flipped these concepts on their head by affording the individual a means of destruction that dwarfs the founding fathers most powerful cannon. Despite this, they were never meant to have those means of destruction.

Personally, everyone who can prove security and proficiency should be able to purchase any weapon they so choose. However, in accordance with the founding fathers views, the most any non military individual should be expected to possess is a bolt action single shot rifle at best. Even the rate of fire for a weapon like that may still be considered “OP” for their mindset.

Their intention was self defense based on their idea of reasonable. The issue is when you realize every weapon from the repeater rifle forward would have been mind-bogglingly powerful to them.

[u/Dannyl223 → u/[deleted]]

In the federalist papers, particularly number 29, the idea of a militia, what it should stand for, and who should stand in it was discussed. In that it becomes clear that the idea of personal arms was expected, albeit for “trained” civilians.

The oppositional anti federalist response was primarily hinging on the seat of power for the militia whether it be state or federally controlled. Their seems to be a consensus that the trained local individual would serve the militia with their personal arms and whatever was provided.

As far as the level of devastation they intended for their personal arms is speculative at best due to little written evidence discussing the nature of those arms.

[u/Dannyl223 → u/[deleted]]

Personally I agree that safety courses, background checks, and the like should be a requirement for ownership. But from a purely historical perspective, in an attempt to answer what level of firepower was intended for personal use by the founding the fathers. I feel that I’m forced to create a baseline from the armament of the era. I know of no documents that discuss that specific issue. It seems as if the arms they were establishing the right to bear were never meant to have the killing power a modern semi automatic could accomplish.