In recent legal filings challenging state assault weapon bans, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has reasoned that past courts have mistakenly restricted what “common use” weapons people are legally allowed to carry.

For example, past decisions have allowed citizens to legally own firearms and knives but not to own cannons, poisonous gases, weaponized aircraft, or brass knuckles.

Related

Yes I want to take away your guns. When will enough be enough?

The DOJ filing in question challenges a Massachusetts law restricting the types of firearms that can be sold in the state, something that the DOJ says violates the Second Amendment. Rather than relying on legislators and courts to decide what “common use” weapons are, the DOJ argues that such determinations should be made by “customary” practices and “ the habits of the country” — that is, what everyday citizens carry and use.

By this reasoning, Slate reports, the DOJ’s argument would accept that nuclear weapons would be permissible for citizens to legally carry if they became widely popular for public use.

Never Miss a Beat

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

The DOJ’s filing acknowledges the possibility of this scenario but calls it “implausible.”

“Even if some nuclear warheads are small enough for an individual to carry, no reasonable person would think to use one to defend himself,” the filing states. It also notes that the weapons are “highly unusual even in military contexts.” But the filing doesn’t rule out the possibility completely.

But the filing raises a question about what unusual and brutal arms the DOJ would legally allow if they ever became “common use.” Such use could conceivably extend to grenade launchers and bazookas, if they ever became popular and more widely available.

Recent Supreme Court rulings against city and state restrictions on firearm possession have widely interpreted the Second Amendment’s core purpose as lawful self-defense. Typically, lower courts have ruled that such self-defense must be justified (to protect a life) and proportionate (in reasonable response to the perceived threat). As such, a nuclear device that could destroy an entire city wouldn’t likely pass these tests.

But the DOJ filing suggests that the question of whether or not to allow massively destructive weaponry might have to be decided by future legislatures or court decisions, since Trump’s DOJ seems willing to allow whichever weapons become widely used by the public; a troubling prospect given the rise in weaponized drone technology.

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.