Senator Chuck Schumer to introduce body armor bill

[DocGKR]

There have been times in my career I have worn body armor under my scrubs working at certain high risk emergency rooms....

[whomever]

"While the technology that you mentioned first (blades, armor, cannon, horses, wagons, etc.) did indeed exist the state of its advancement (a point that I made) is not the issue. That it existed is the point. As for the other technology you mentioned (supressors, NVG's, and EW options/methods), the technology was non-existent and there is no way that the framers knew of, or more importantly, anticipated its emergence. Assumptions that the framers might have extended the meaning of "arms" to the 2A for accessories (like NVGs, etc.) not presently in existence at that time is also equally faulty."

I don't think Heller limits the protected arms to those that existed in colonial times. The S.C. made this pretty explicit in Caetano (which was a unanimous decision, BTW):

"The court [the MA court that the S.C. is overruling ...ed] offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582. "

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...10078_aplc.pdf

[Guerrero]

There have been times in my career I have worn body armor under my scrubs working at certain high risk emergency rooms....

When I went through ECQC, one of the other students was a Chicago ER doc who always wears a vest under his scrubs.

[the Schwartz]

I don't think Heller limits the protected arms to those that existed in colonial times. The S.C. made this pretty explicit in Caetano (which was a unanimous decision, BTW):

"The court [the MA court that the S.C. is overruling ...ed] offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582. "

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...10078_aplc.pdf

You're right. Heller does not do that (limit 2A protections to "arms" that existed at the time of its drafting), but that is not the point that I have been attempting.

Getting a night-vision device, malware, or flashlights/lasers incorporated as "arms" under protection of the Second Amendment is going to be an uphill battle at best. Conjecture that the framers would've defined/protected these same items as "arms" under the Second Amendment doesn't hold water either. At least with the TASER, anyone wishing to do so can argue the TASER to be an "arm" since it propels a projectile meant to disable an attacker/adversary, so I do agree at least in part with what you are saying.

[StraitR]

I stuffed a level IIIa soft plate in my kid's backpack. It's her "shield", and she grabs it during every drill. Think of the kids, Chuck.

[JRB]

You're right. Heller does not do that (limit 2A protections to "arms" that existed at the time of its drafting), but that is not the point that I have been attempting.

Getting a night-vision device, malware, or flashlights/lasers incorporated as "arms" under protection of the Second Amendment is going to be an uphill battle at best. Conjecture that the framers would've defined/protected these same items as "arms" under the Second Amendment doesn't hold water either. At least with the TASER, anyone wishing to do so can argue the TASER to be an "arm" since it propels a projectile meant to disable an attacker/adversary, so I do agree at least in part with what you are saying.

For years, defeatist attitudes such as yours start the discussion by coming halfway to our opposition when our opponents have no interest in genuine compromise.
That said, I'm going to make the assumption that you believe 1A rights include modern technology beyond the spoken/shouted word and correspondence prepared with a quill pen on handmade paper and carried by horse/wagon/person to be hand delivered to the recipient.

Arms; Noun - weapons; armaments.
"arms and ammunition"
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"

ITAR stands for International Trade in Arms Regulations. All of the technology being discussed including suppressors, NVG's, lasers, etc can be and is effectively used in modern combat, are all regulated by ITAR.
So if we accept that the 2A protects the rights of the people to maintain modern arms to protect themselves and the Constitution of the United States, then it protects our rights to own such devices.
Yes, current law wildly infringes on this right considerably, and in my voting opinion, regulating the sale, possession, construction, or use of any of those devices is an infringement on the 2A.

That's the position I would be arguing from, because too many folks like yourself accept defeat because it'd be 'too hard' to convince any given Mr 'Turn them all in' or Ms 'Guns are scary ban them' to acknolwedge the 2A as intended and written.

If we want any hope at a genuine compromise, as in, new laws are drafted to de-stupify existing laws and give us a genuine benefit in trade for some supposed 'gonna happen anyway' new laws such as mandatory background checks - we're going to need to start that discussion from the absolute opposite side.

So when they chant 'ban them all', I ask 'Why can't I buy an AT-4 if I have the money and I want one?'
I would suggest more folks in our position consider taking a similar stance.

[the Schwartz]

For years, defeatist attitudes such as yours start the discussion by coming halfway to our opposition when our opponents have no interest in genuine compromise.
That said, I'm going to make the assumption that you believe 1A rights include modern technology beyond the spoken/shouted word and correspondence prepared with a quill pen on handmade paper and carried by horse/wagon/person to be hand delivered to the recipient.



ITAR stands for International Trade in Arms Regulations. All of the technology being discussed including suppressors, NVG's, lasers, etc can be and is effectively used in modern combat, are all regulated by ITAR.
So if we accept that the 2A protects the rights of the people to maintain modern arms to protect themselves and the Constitution of the United States, then it protects our rights to own such devices.
Yes, current law wildly infringes on this right considerably, and in my voting opinion, regulating the sale, possession, construction, or use of any of those devices is an infringement on the 2A.

That's the position I would be arguing from, because too many folks like yourself accept defeat because it'd be 'too hard' to convince any given Mr 'Turn them all in' or Ms 'Guns are scary ban them' to acknolwedge the 2A as intended and written.

If we want any hope at a genuine compromise, as in, new laws are drafted to de-stupify existing laws and give us a genuine benefit in trade for some supposed 'gonna happen anyway' new laws such as mandatory background checks - we're going to need to start that discussion from the absolute opposite side.

So when they chant 'ban them all', I ask 'Why can't I buy an AT-4 if I have the money and I want one?'
I would suggest more folks in our position consider taking a similar stance.

In your haste to call me a "defeatist" (by no measure am I), you blew past what I stated and failed to comprehend what I was saying.

Repeating it here won't help you out, so I won't bother.

ITAR is not the Second Amendment.