Arms and Weapons

[palani]

According to Bouviers 1856 Law Dictionary


ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another.

The Constitution of the United States, Amendm. art. 2, declares, "that a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now the question is what is the difference between a weapon and an arm. Note all the rhetoric lately concerning banning "assault weapons"? There is no discussion of banning "assault arms". Note that the system holds that a concealed weapon must be licensed? There is no discussion of licensing "concealed arms".

Black's 4th Edition describes a weapon as


WEAPON - An instrument of offensive or defensive combat, or anything used, or designed to be used, in destroying, defeating or injuring an enemy. Perry v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 587, 151 S.W.2d, 377, 379 ; People ex rel. Griffin v. Hunt, 150 Misc. 163. 270 N.Y.S. 248. Something to fight with. Highsaw v. Creech, 17 Tenn.App. 573, 69 S.W.2d 249.

The term is chiefly used, in law, in the statutes prohibiting the carrying of "concealed" or "deadly" weapons. See those titles. And see also "offensive."

Black's 4th describes under "concealed"


The term "concealed weapon" means weapons willfully or knowingly covered or kept from sight. Owen v. State, 31 Ala. 387.

Note no "arms" are discussed in either of these two definitions?

Black's 4th described under "deadly"


DEADLY WEAPON ... Such weapons or instruments as are made and designed for offensive or defensive purposes, or for the destruction of life or the infliction of injury. Commonwealth v. Branham, 8 Bush. (Ky) 387. One likely to produce death or great bodily harm. People v. Fuqua, 58 Cal. 145; State v. Hedrick, 99 W.Va. 519, 130 S.E. 295, 298.

One which, from the manner used , is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury, Harris v. State, 72 Tex.Cr.R. 491, 162 S.W. 1150, 1151; Burgess v. Commonwealth, 176 Ky. 326, 195 S.W. 445.

Any weapon dangerous to life, or with which death may be easily and readily produced. Parman v. Lemmon, 119 Kan. 323, 244 P. 227, 229, 44 A.L.R. 1500; People v. Dwyer, 324 Ill. 363, 155 N.E. 316, 317.

Black's 4th


OFFENSIVE WEAPON ... As occasionally used in criminal law and statutes, a weapon primarily meant and adapted for attack and the infliction of injury, but practically the term includes anything that would come within the description of a "deadly" or "dangerous" weapon. State v. Dineen, 10 Minn. 411 (Gil. 325); Rex v. Grice, Rex v. Noakes. Pistol has been held to be "offensive weapon" within statute punishing assault with intent to rob. Reed v. Commonwealth

A Roman law maxim hold that "things that are similar are not the same". The judicial branch judiciously stays away from the term "arm" because that is constitutionally protected. Instead they concentrate upon other words that might be construed as the same item but not constitutionally protected (pistol, weapon, the act of concealment) but is much less lethal to their view of upholding their oath of office.

An arm is not a weapon. An arm is used primarily for self-defense. More importantly it is PROTECTED by the bill of rights. A weapon is primarily offensive ALTHOUGH it might also be used defensively. An assault weapon is not an arm. Call it an arm though and establish a right to carry it at all times, unconditionally, whether in sight or out of view.

[palani]

Arms includes armor, shields, helmets, swords, crossbows, longbows and others that are not connected with "fire".

I once met an ex- tank commander who was sent to Waco. ( He was a VB programmer when I knew him). If tanks are going to be used against you (as weapons) then tanks also become defensive arms. I don't doubt the term "arms" includes F16s or nuclear subs depending upon the circumstances under which they are used.

Money is a weapon. It might be classed an "offensive weapon" or even a "weapon of mass destruction". How many of you carry these instruments of war concealed in your wallet?

[iOWNme]

Although i do enjoy your posts, i am going to give you a different take on this.....

Palani - You own yourself. Which means you have the inherent right to defend yourself. It matters not what some "authority" figure scribbled on paper 200+ years ago. It matters not what some "law" says you can or cannot use to do that defending. And it certainly doesnt matter in the slightest if another "authority" figure defined such a word as to try and limit your right to defend yourself.

Why do you search through and wade through gobs of scribbles on paper desperately searching for words that will tell you you are free? It sounds as if your chains are between your ears, and not scribbles on paper.

By even acknowledging any of the above proves that you seek for some "authority" figure to scribble some words on paper that allow you to defend yourself with arms. Doesn't this seem a bit strange to you? In other words, where did your right to defend yourself come from? It either came from your inherent right of self-ownership, or it came from your Master. I know you know the answer.

[palani]

Why do you search through and wade through gobs of scribbles on paper desperately searching for words that will tell you you are free?

Several reasons really.

1) While the current architecture of government is flawed it is much less expense to determine where the flaws are and repair them than to throw out the good with the bad and start from scratch.

2) Honor thy parents consists in part of accepting their ways of life.

3) The fact that the use of the word-symbol "arms" is so studiously avoided means that this 2nd amendment provision is still alive and active.

4) People who refuse to understand English will have much worse luck constructing a government than those who were much more intelligent 200 years hence.

Besides, Blackstone put the proposition as follows


We inherit an old Gothic caftle, erected in the days of chivalry, but fitted up for a modern inhabitant. The moated ramparts, the embattled towers, and the trophied halls, are magnificent and venerable, but ufelefs. The inferior apartments, now converted into rooms of conveyance, are cheerful and commodious, thought their approaches are winding and difficult.

IN this part of our difquifitions I however thought it may duty to unfold, as far as intelligibly I could, the nature of thefe real actions, as well as of perfonal remedies. And this not only becaufe they are ftill in force, ftill the law of the land, though obfolete and difufed; and may perhaps, in their turn, be hereafter with fome neceffary corrections called out again into common ufe; but alfo becaufe, as a fenfible writer has well obferved z

[BarnkleBob]

What I find interesting is the distinction that the courts have tendered between types of "arms," namely anyone may own, purchase & carry ANY "black powder" firearm.... They are totally unregulated and not subject to ATF regs. Somehow thru meta-physical film flam when a gun uses modern cartridges & gun powder they magically fall under severe ATF regulations & CCW laws.... I have never been able to find the jural reasoning & logic between the distinction of the two.... Both are just as deadly, one is interpreted as protected by the 2nd, the other is not!

[palani]

What I find interesting is the distinction that the courts have tendered between types of "arms," namely anyone may own, purchase & carry ANY "black powder" firearm.... They are totally unregulated and not subject to ATF regs. Somehow thru meta-physical film flam when a gun uses modern cartridges & gun powder they magically fall under severe ATF regulations & CCW laws.... I have never been able to find the jural reasoning & logic between the distinction of the two.... Both are just as deadly, one is interpreted as protected by the 2nd, the other is not!

No. That is not it. Weapons manufactured after 1899 are deemed to have been entered into commerce. It is the commerce that is being regulated rather than the weapon. It is the interstate commerce clause.

I use the term 'weapon' advisedly. It may or not be the proper term. You would have to search the acts of congress to determine how they succeeded in performing this little magic trick.

Somewhere in George Gordon's audio archive he discusses the connection between commerce and BATFE regulation. You may find them here ... http://library.georgegordon.com/audio

[BarnkleBob]

Thanks, But black powder guns are an article of interstate commerce too.... I have often pondered if a firearm is regulatable if one created it from the ground up at home, outside of both intrastate & interstate commerce.... But then again "home" is regarded as a place of commerce too. I don't think it really matters much today under color of law and law of rule tho....

[midnight rambler]

Money is a weapon.

You mean DEBT is a weapon. There is NO *money* in circulation in the states.

[palani]

You mean DEBT is a weapon. There is NO *money* in circulation in the states.
There is lawful money, constitutional money, fiat money, money of account, money of exchange.

Then there is chewing gum.

Things that circulate tend to come back (like a boomerang). That leads one to the concept of a 'return' (as in 1040).

[midnight rambler]

There is lawful money, constitutional money, fiat money, money of account, money of exchange.

Then there is chewing gum.

Things that circulate tend to come back (like a boomerang). That leads one to the concept of a 'return' (as in 1040).

FRNs on their face state that each one is 'debt' (Federal Reserve Note, "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER..." - there is NOTHING connected to the FRN which one can remotely use as a basis in reality for calling FRNs 'money'. There's only a cherished delusion that FRNs constitute 'money'. I regard any acceptance of FRNs to be 'money' as mass hysteria. The Banksters/Death Cult have perverted the meaning of 'money'.

[BarnkleBob]

Not to drift from the OP's topic... But it is my understanding that the progressive income tax, stock markets & bond markets are generally employed to such up & control the .gov induced inflation... Whatever the anti-inflation tax doesn't collect or remove from the local economy, most of the remaining will be parked in capital markets and thusly will not compete with commodities... If the money in the stock & bond markets attempted to seek safe haven in commodities, commodity prices would quadruple plus over night.... This is what freaks the Fed & .gov out, a great crash in stocks & bonds would send capital fleeing to commodes...prolly resulting in $15 - 20 gal gas overnight, etc.... At least that's my understanding....

[midnight rambler]

Back to the OP, you're right that we need to be taking back the description of our guns (OWNING the description, like OWNING our guns), i.e. 'defensive arms' instead of 'assault weapons'.

The meme is key to perception, and of course the perception of reality is more important than reality itself (see my sig).

[palani]

FRNs on their face state that each one is 'debt'

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/United_States_one_dollar_bill,_obverse.jpg

See ... it says 'dollar'. A 'dollar' (unless counterfeit) has a specific definition.


DOLLAR, money. A silver coin of the United States of the value of one hundred cents, or tenth part of an eagle.

2. It weighs four hundred and twelve and a half grains. Of one thousand parts, nine hundred are of pure silver and one hundred of alloy. Act of January 18, 1837

[midnight rambler]

See ... it says 'dollar'. A 'dollar' (unless counterfeit) has a specific definition.

Well it IS counterfeit. Duh. By law notes are redeemable. What can you (realistically, practically) redeem a Federal Reserve NOTE for?? (and please - no arguments about how *everyone* 'accepts' FRNs for goods and services, there's no accounting for the mentally incompetent, the imbeciles, the enslaved, etc.) FRNs are 'IOU nothing's

[palani]

What can you (realistically, practically) redeem a Federal Reserve NOTE for??

Lawful money for one thing. It looks the same as a FRN but comes with no usury or other strings. You still have the same illusion that it buys anything but at least you get to hang on to them LAWFULLY.


Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

[midnight rambler]

Lawful money for one thing. It looks the same as a FRN but comes with no usury or other strings. You still have the same illusion that it buys anything but at least you get to hang on to them LAWFULLY.

Kindly tell me where one can redeem FRNs for 'lawful money', as well as how one goes about redeeming FRNs for 'lawful money'. TIA

[palani]

I endorse every check for deposit "DEPOSIT PER 12 USC 411". Now you have to understand that when you put 1,000 bushels of corn into a warehouse you don't come back the next day and ask to withdraw 100 bushels of wheat. What you put in you generally get to take out. What comes out is lawful money.

Don't confuse lawful money with constitutional money. That last is called specie and it clinks when it falls from a distance. Lawful money is scriptural ... comes with no usury ... although you have to interpret this because nobody is goin' to tell you outright.

[BarnkleBob]

The question remains.... why are black powder guns not regulated but modern firearms are? They are both articles of commerce...I think even a felon can own bp guns!.... why the legal distinction...

[palani]

The question remains.... why are black powder guns not regulated but modern firearms are? They are both articles of commerce...I think even a felon can own bp guns!.... why the legal distinction...


Gun Control Act of 1968 (Which modified Title 18, U.S. Code):

18 USC 921 (a)(16).

(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock,
percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or
before 1898;
or
(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica --
(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured
in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial
trade.

http://www.empirearms.com/pre-1899.htm

[BarnkleBob]

I suspect the distinction probably lays in the defacto "public policy' doctrine...