Are Molotov Cocktails Arms Protected by the Second Amendment?

 Over at Instapundit, Sarah Hoyt links to a news story  New Jersey man arrested for having Molotov cocktail outside DC church during high profile mass, and asks DOES THE 2ND AMENDMENT COVER THOSE?

Arguable. The Court has largely focused on self-defense on its decisions, and emphatically so with respect to bearing in Bruen.. Molotov cocktails are only such weapons under the most extreme conditions (large mobs coming to burn out the black section of town as happened in East St. Louis in 1916). Even this would likely not require the right to bear them off your own property.

The Court has never dealt with the primary motivation for the Second Amendment: the insurrectionary theory, that a tyrannical government might need some kinetic conversation to prevent misuse of its powers. This does not require a right to carry any category of arms.  Revolutionaries have bigger problems than violating carry laws.  To be ready to persuade the government to stop or relinquish the levers of power, you only need to possess such arms at home in preparation for such revolt. In practice, laws prohibiting possession of the required components for Molotov cocktails (flammable liquid, glass bottle, rag) are unenforceable.