Gunpowder was and is an inherently dangerous powder. The common law rule was if gun powder blew up, the owner of the powder was liable for any damage, even if he was without fault and did everything right. Thus if kept gunpowder in your home and it harmed someone, you were liable (and the difference between Civil and Criminal liability was NOT that different back in 1787, the divergence was ongoing as it had been for centuries, but they is and was an overlap between Civil Liability and criminal negligence.
The other rule of law NOT changed by the Second amendment, was that if you fired a weapon, you were responsible for anything it hit. Thus if you carefully fired a weapon and killed someone anyway, you were liable for manslaughter (Murder required an intent to kill, manslaughter did and does not).
I bring these two items up for when it comes to atomic weapons, both rules apply. i.e. if an atomic bomb goes off, the owner of the weapon is liable for any damage. The law also permits the Government to pass regulations that minimize such losses, regulations that can make owing such weapons to expensive (an effective ban).
Atomic bombs contain radioactive material. Under the above rules, if anyone is harmed do to that radioactivity, the owner has to pay. Given that such harm would be widespread, the Government could pass reasonable regulations that someone who owns such weapons keep them in a place where the radioactivity will harm no innocent third party. Thus the atomic weapon may be cheap to obtain compared to where it has to be kept.
Just like the Government of 1792 (The adoption of the Bill of Rights) did not change any of the strict liability laws as to Gunpowder or liability if you fired a weapon, atomic weapons by their nature are inherently dangerous (as are the Anthrax you mention). Thus the same rules as to Gunpowder applies to Atomic Weapons, Chemical Weapons and Biological weapons, reasonable regulations are permissible, and given the nature of these weapons reasonable regulations can include storing them someplace safe which can be on a Government base or if no such base is available banned.
Every one of the Rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, if such restrictions are the only way to maintain over safety. Thus a ban on private individuals owning Atomic bombs, biological weapons and even Chemical Weapons are justified under the concept that these are so inherently dangerous that anything but a ban would be ineffective.
Now, the real issue is how far down the list do one go? Technically one can own a Supersonic Air Plane in the US, but they can NOT fly it (Sonic Booms are something stick liability will apply to). One can own artillery, the real question is the ban on ammunition violate the Second Amendment, if someone can store such ammunition safety?
The same rules applies to Tanks and other Armored Vehicles, you can own them, but you can NOT operate them on the public roads. Such a ban can be justified do to excess damage to roads from the tracks (If the tracks used do NOT do such damage, then use of such vehicles on roads may be permissible, but such safe tracks also lose the ability to dig into the ground to give the tracks vehicle traction on bad soil).
Remember the Second Amendment does NOT require the State or Federal Government to do anything, thus if they is no place to fire such weapons, one can not fire such weapons. Thus reasonable restrictions could include NOT hoarding ammunition that the Government determines is unsafe AND that such a ruling is NOT arbitrary (i.e, there are facts that support the Government Regulations are being reasonable, not a back handed attempt to ban something the government does not want).
In my opinion, Atomic bombs, being radioactive, can be banned by the Government to be owned by Civilians on the ground of radioactivity problems. Anthrax and other biological and Chemical weapons suffer from a similar problem, to high a threat to be stored anywhere but the most secure facilities, and civilians rarely have that capacity and as such can be banned.
Lesser weapons are more questionable. Having a Tank may frighten someone, but unless you take it off your land, it will cause your neighbors no harm unless it is stolen (and Strict Liability of Gunpowder NEVER extended to the use of Stolen Gun powder by third parties, thus the same rule as to tanks and other weapons). I have always question the constitutionality on the ban on Automatic Weapons, for such weapons are clearly a type of Weapon a member of a militia would prefer to carry into combat. The harm such weapons can do is like someone holding a musket in his home, it is dangerous only when it is loaded. Thus should be constitutional (but given the life sentence one gets if convicted I am NOT about to challenge the ban on automatic weapons for I fear many of the same people on the US Supreme Court will rule that such a ban in constitutional for it is not needed for "Self protection" the key to their ruling as to the various bans on pistol ownership. Scalia has even hinted at this. In simple terms Scalia does not fear someone with a pistol, for that is just a hood. Scalia fears someone with an M-16 for that may be a revolutionary).
In short, I think a Government Ban on any weapons that can be shown that if NOT properly stored can cause harm. On the other hand any weapon or ammunition that can be properly stored can not be banned. Most weapons most people can buy are of the later type (and that can include Tanks and Artillery and supersonic jet fighters). Weapons that are known to "leak" (Gas, bugs or nuclear radiation) can be banned for such leaks can cause massive harm to other people for they are the most like Gunpowder and the strict liability rulings under the Common Laws as to Gunpowder and other similar inherently dangerous items.
= new reply since forum marked as read
