Hello, I am happy to answer your question.
It is interesting in light of today's Supreme Court desicion on the topic, which ruled that the constitution "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
Up until today, there were 39 states which permit the bearing of arms by individuals. That number could change now based upon this ruling.
As you see from the language of the court today, they consider the constitution to protect only the possession of firearms, not other weapons. However, you need to look to the laws of each particular state and city to determine the specific rules about other weapons.
Here is a link regarding today's decision: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7474924.stm
I hope this was helpful, and good luck.
Kimberly
Lawyer
I am happy to help! I have extensive experience in various legal fields.
Kimberly,
I've been reading about the SCOTUS decision all afternoon, and I did notice that it was all about guns, with no mention of other weapons. I also noticed that courts have previously ruled that a sawed-off shotgun, for example, having no common military use or specific benefit to the role of a militia in providing for the common defense, does not necessarily fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. As a result, the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess and carry a firearm, but not necessarily each and every type of firearm under the sun because not all firearms are in use by the military or fit for use by a militia. But what about the weapons that have undeniable military application, are in use by the military right now, would clearly be necessary to the viability of any militia, but cannot be considered firearms? Surely standard-issue weapons with a clear military utility such as field knives, maybe even grenades, meet both the spirit and intent of an Amendment that specifies "arms" and not solely "firearms," right?