The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Heller and the definition of "dangerous and unusual"

JoshM75 · June 14, 2012, 11:45 PM

A query - in reading the comments of the Heller decision I was initially under the impression that the historical prohibition on “dangerous and unusual weapons” related to actual weapons. For example "dangerous" as in area-effect weaponary such as man-portable flamethrowers or rocket launchers, and "unusual" such as pen guns, walking stick guns, or cell phone guns.

However, the comments of Alan Gura at a NJ2AS meeting refers to this prohibtion as not being about actual weapons, but rather to dangerous and unusual behaviour or conduct by those whom are carrying arms.

IIRC Gura sets out his view of the historical prohibition is based on the offence of "going armed to the terror of the Public".

So my query is does the historical prohibition on “dangerous and unusual weapons” a matter of weaponary or of conduct?

I'd be interested to read others views on this or be pointed to any links.

Much thanks .. Josh

Gura discusses it here (22.20)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE3kX...e_gdata_player

June 14, 2012, 11:45 PM	#1
JoshM75 Senior Member Join Date: June 28, 2000 Location: New Zealand Posts: 231	Heller and the definition of "dangerous and unusual" A query - in reading the comments of the Heller decision I was initially under the impression that the historical prohibition on “dangerous and unusual weapons” related to actual weapons. For example "dangerous" as in area-effect weaponary such as man-portable flamethrowers or rocket launchers, and "unusual" such as pen guns, walking stick guns, or cell phone guns. However, the comments of Alan Gura at a NJ2AS meeting refers to this prohibtion as not being about actual weapons, but rather to dangerous and unusual behaviour or conduct by those whom are carrying arms. IIRC Gura sets out his view of the historical prohibition is based on the offence of "going armed to the terror of the Public". So my query is does the historical prohibition on “dangerous and unusual weapons” a matter of weaponary or of conduct? I'd be interested to read others views on this or be pointed to any links. Much thanks .. Josh Gura discusses it here (22.20) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE3kX...e_gdata_player