The far left Washington Post reports the Connecticut Supreme Court has give Second Amendment protection to the possession of billies (police batons in newspeak) and “dirks.”
The case involves Connecticut’s complete ban on transporting billies and daggers or poniards in the Nutmeg State. The complete Pravda Potomac report is at the link, but briefly quoting the Eugen Volokh bylined report:
Indeed, expandable batons are intermediate force devices that, when used as intended, are unlikely to cause death or permanent bodily injury. For these reasons, we are persuaded that the police baton that the defendant had in his vehicle is the kind of weapon traditionally used by the state for public safety purposes and is neither so dangerous nor so unusual as to fall outside the purview of the second amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.
Curiously, neither billies, expandable or fixed; nor daggers are mentioned in the Second Amendment. Noah Webster’s definition of “arms” is:
Side* arms, are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, &c.
A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.
The definition clearly allows Americans to possess cannon, mortars, rifles, muskets, cartridge boxes and swords. There is not a word, either in Webster or elsewhere, that suggests a billy is a protected weapon. Although quarterstaffs were sometimes used in that era.
While any progress in the brutally repressive Sate of Connecticut is welcome, the plain text indicates the court would be unlikely to grant Second Amendment protections to those arms included by definition and usage in the Second Amendment’s protections.
So the bottom line is still the same. Connecticut is an outlaw State and will probably remain so unless Congress acts to overrule the State legislature.
* Early editions of Webster had “sire” for “side,” and “to beget” makes no sense at all! Casing type by candlelight could not have been easy.