Hacker News Reader

Comment by Simon_says | Hacker News Reader

Can some lawyer on here explain how this law is not plainly in conflict with the Second Ammendment? How can a city just decide they don't like knives? In part of the article, someone describes these knives as "dangerous weapons" -- well, yea, that's the idea ...

View on HN

The courts haven't yet decided whether or not the "bear arms" part of the second amendment means you have a right to carry arms outside your home.

Wrenn v. DC recently ruled in favor of that interpretation, and DC is now deciding if they want to try to take it to the supreme court. The 9th circuit found otherwise in Peruta v San Diego, so there's a good chance SCOTUS takes it if appealed.

> The courts haven't yet decided whether or not the "bear arms" part of the second amendment means you have a right to carry arms outside your home.

Absurd

It wasn't decided that there was a right to bear arms outside of a well-regulated militia until the Heller decision, which is quite recent and the court chose to make a narrow determination based on the circumstances of the case (which is common).

As I understand it, the dispute is over the meaning of 'militia'. At the time, the 'militia' was considered to be any able-bodied male under the age of 40, and under the law's current definition of the militia, any able-bodied person between 17 and 40 is considered to informally be part of the militia (as opposed to the national guard, who are formally part of it)[1]. The question is whether 'militia' means just the national guard or includes the 'irregulars' who would've been expected to fight despite not formally being part of the military.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

Reply on news.ycombinator.com