![]() And anyone who claims they're currently connected is wrong. So basically your individual right to own gun has nothing to do with a "well regulated militia" - even if that was the original motivation for it. (f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. (d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. (c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. ![]() The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. ![]() The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. Heller on the very first page of the decision syllabus (italics mine): (1) The Second Amendment 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. So you could just as well re-phrase the 2A as "A well armed neighborhood watch being necessary to repel an invasion of zombies, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," without changing existing gun rights or limiting gun ownership to only fighting the undead in an organized group.Īnd that's not just my interpretation - that's what the Supreme Court said in District of Columbia v. Plus the first clause of the Second Amendment, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", should be seen as a motivational phrase providing a justification for the second clause without necessarily limiting it to that single purpose. Look I'm no constitutional professor but it should be pretty well understood these days that the term "well regulated" in the 18th century had the connotation of being well run and functioning rather than the modern meaning of being controlled and restricted by say the government. A "well regulated militia" would require people to sacrifice, to get in shape, learn small unit tactics, hike with heavy packs in deplorable weather conditions, give up modern conveniences, and generally suffer to become something that might pass as the sort of militia that would have a hope of surviving in today's fourth and fifth generation warfare. I think it has to do with the uncomfortable fact that the first half of the Second Amendment suggests an obligation and a duty. ![]() Find a Second Amendment rally anywhere, and you'll hear cries of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!" You won't hear many cries (if any) for "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state!" Do you ever wonder why that is? While I don't purport to speak for everyone, I have a hunch. Meanwhile Bob Owens (now of ) who I have a lot of respect for also doesn't seem to quite fully get the Second Amendment either: As a shooting community, we seem to be huge on the latter half of the Second Amendment, and not so much on the first half. If that were true, then the authors of the Second Amendment themselves, should not have specified "well-regulated." "Many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, an infringement. The fact is that all Constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be." In the December issue G&A technical editor Dick Metcalf supports regulating guns using this argument: "I bring this up," Metcalf writes, "because way too many gun owners still believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement. Guns & Ammo Editor Doesn't Understand the Second Amendment ![]()
0 Comments
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |