I would say arms refers to hand carried small firearms
Ah, but now you're limiting the Constitutional right by defining terms in a limited way. Why aren't stinger missiles "arms"? They can be hand carried.
And if you can limit arms by definition, can the government also limit "the press" by saying that only includes newspapers, not magazines and TV? So government can censor TV and magazines all it wants without violating the constitution??
The owner of a property (includeing airplanes and airports) would have a right to keep
weapons off their property.
Airplanes, okay, since they are owned by the private airlines. But airports are mostly public property, and the 2nd amendment prohibits the government from infringing the right to bear arms. So why do you allow the government to infringe your right to bear arms on public property? After all, if you say they can prohibit your having arms in an airport, you are also admitting that they can prohibit your right to bear arms on any public street or road. So you can have arms in your house (if you can get them there without taking them over any public road) but once there, you can't take them anywhere, including a shooting range.
Is that okay?
IMO, where we are is that the constitution HAS to be interpreted. It doesn't mean exactly what it says it means.
So the problem is, how should it be interpreted. Which is a question of political philosophy, not law. |
