us-constitution weapons second-amendment
Legal Right to Own Nukes
<p>As per the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Second Amendment</a> of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">United States Constitution</a> one has to wonder if there are any restrictions with regard to the type (or destructiveness) of arm you shall bear.</p>

<p>If someone could afford the bill and be in safety/inspection/regulation compliance and seek to bear the arm of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon" rel="nofollow noreferrer">nuclear weapons</a> one has to wonder if this would be their constitutional right.</p>

<p>Do people have a legal right to own nuclear weapons? Why or why not and has anyone ever taken such concerns to a court for a legal judgement on the matter?</p>

<p>Almost certainly, there is no such right. </p>

<p>It's illegal under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/831" rel="noreferrer">18 USC 831</a> to possess "nuclear material" without specific authorization.  <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/832" rel="noreferrer">18 USC 832</a> forbids the possession of a "radiological weapon".  If there is intent to use the device to cause death, serious bodily injury, or damage to property or the environment, that's also a violation of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332i" rel="noreferrer">18 USC 2332i</a>.  </p>

<p>I don't think these laws have been explicitly tested against the Second Amendment, but related cases suggest they would hold up (if the challenge wasn't simply dismissed as frivolous).</p>

<p>The Second Amendment doesn't grant a blanket right to own weapons.  Federal law, 18 USC 922 (o) makes it unlawful to own a "machinegun" (as defined in the statute), and in the case of <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/15-10803/15-10803-2016-06-30.html" rel="noreferrer">Hollis v. Lynch</a>, the Fifth Circuit held that this law was constitutional, because, as they said, the Second Amendment only protects weapons that are in "common use [...] for lawful purposes like self-defense."  This case doesn't seem to have been appealed further, but the reasoning cited by the Fifth Circuit comes from the Supreme Court's opinion in <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/554/570.html" rel="noreferrer">D.C. v. Heller</a>.</p>

<p>If machineguns aren't in "common use", and therefore not protected, surely the same would apply to nuclear weapons.</p>

<p>Each and every time the Supreme Court has addressed the second amendment, it has upheld that it is constitutionally permissible to have prohibitions on dangerous and unusual weapons.  Nuclear weapons meet this standard.</p>

<p>For a prohibition to be permissible, the weapon must be <strong>both</strong> dangerous and unusual.</p>

<p>Any weapon used for offense or defense has to be dangerous.  It'd be pretty stupid to try and defend oneself with something totally incapable of inflicting pain or injury.  The historical bans referred to by SCOTUS cases narrow the concept of "dangerous" to mean:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>the weapon has a high likelihood of injuring the person wielding the instrument AND/OR</p></li>
<li><p>the weapon, by its entire nature, indiscriminately injures or kills, and there is no manner to properly target the weapon at a specific individual or small group</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Since the impact of a nuclear weapon is characterized by its rather substantial blast radius and ranges of immediate death and radiation poisoning, it is clearly an indiscriminate weapon.  As such, it meets the first half of the standard of a permissible prohibition.</p>

<p>Nuclear weapons are only possessed by approximately 10% of nations.  Those nations which possess these arms place them in the control of very small, specialized units.  Nuclear weapons have only been utilized twice in the history of warfare.  This qualifies them as unusual.</p>
