What constitutes a "brearable arm" as thet term is used with regard to the 2nd?

Perhaps it should be discussed why any states still maintain prohibitions on non-firearm type weapons in light of the Heller ruling, which said the second amendment extends prima facia to all implements that might constitute bearable arms, that one might take up in their own defense? How are prohibitions on various types of knives, bludgeons, and weapons of an oriental nature still legally prohibited?

 

Like... handguns?

 

which I haven't done. I am repeating the correct position, and backed it up with a supreme court ruling.

 

I agree. I was just using my state as an example.

 

Okay, I'll try. If a liberal state like Oregon wants to pass a law prohibiting possession of AR-15's or 12-gaude automatic shotguns, or whatever, the smoke-filled room discussions will revolve around how the restriction will play with the voters, not how it will play with the Supreme Court. I don't say that's a good thing. And obviously they will cherry pick language from Heller (and Miller) as everyone else is doing, except for you and I of course.

I am in Texas, so you don't have to worry too much about such a restriction originating down here, LOL.

There are politicians who would actually relish a "loss" at the Supreme Court so that they can run on a "He Stood Up to the Gun Nuts!" platform.

 

I DID NOT SAY IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE....
I asked for someone to present a viable scenario

 

There are certain examples that are of such significant size, that no holsters exist. Such would render it difficult to legally bear one of these examples without doing so constituting brandishing.

 

And as has been explained multiple time, Heller does not state what is being claimed by yourself. Nor can it be demonstrated by yourself how it does. All that can be done is repeating the false claim that such is not the case, even though there is no evidence to support such a claim as being factually accurate.

 

I've quoted them doing so, lol

 

Only to be refuted with the fact that Heller did not speak about newly manufactured fully-automatic firearms, either in terms of possession or carrying, or nuclear devices. Heller was about neither, so it spoke on neither. It does nothing to validate the legal landscape on these particular subjects.

 

it wasn't though. its why you cant own nukes, or machine guns made after 86.

 

And so, handguns, as a class of firearms, are not bearable arms?

 

What about puckle guns? Fully automatic weapons that existed before the constitution. The idea that they did not know about self repeating firearms back then is laughable.

 

Slings? But not easily concealed.

 

Is there any evidence these weapons were deployed in the revolutionary war... or even the war of 1812. And if not, why not? Because as you seem to imply, everyone was very familiar with this devastating weapon for almost 100 years

 

Slings? But not easily concealed.

 

It is also irrelevant.

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

 

Any scenario could be possible with the exception of maybe space aliens, well that is still possible. The most likely one could be paratroopers dropped in the middle of the nation comprised of thousands of troops and hundreds of aircraft. Planes can travel low enough to avoid our radar and only come up to drop altitude.

 

I am spit-balling here but how about state's rights?

 

States do not possess rights.

Beyond such, it does not actually address the question. Heller and later McDonald stated the second amendment extends to all implements that may constitute bearable arms, meaning it applies to more than simply firearms. So why are states maintaining legal prohibitions on bludgeons, various types of knives, metal knuckles, and weapons of an oriental heritage, if such can be effectively used for purposes such as self defense, and do not pose the same risk of deadly force as firearms?

 

Thus ignoring the raised points as to why Heller has nothing to do with either topic. Although seeing as Heller states that restrictions cannot be arbitrary or capricious, the prohibition on newly-manufactured fully-automatic firearms is unconstitutional on that basis alone, as the date is both arbitrary, and capricious.

 

Such was certainly never said.

 

Are you sure Heller said that? Where?

 

Sorry. I do not see that as even close to viable. It is difficult to even fly in a single plane with drugs. Flying in a fleet of planes with paratroops is only viable in a Hollywood movie

 

Page fifty nine of the ruling.

Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.

It is exceptionally difficult to build the case that prohibiting firearms from private ownership, based entirely on the date of their construction, is neither arbitrary nor capricious, especially when the firearms themselves remain available for private ownership.