2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

 

2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

• adopted by Congress on December 15, 1791.
• “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

militia

• considered by some to be consistent with the concept of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to firearms for members serving in a select militia.
• others hold that while militia service is the stated justification for protecting the right to keep and bear arms, it is not a pre-condition on that right.
• Adherents to this interpretation observe that the latter clause of the amendment still guarantees the right to “the people,” and, therefore, is not limited to members of a select militia.

well regulated militia

• The term “regulated” means “disciplined” or “trained”. In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”
• Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29: ”If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security…confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority…(and) reserving to the states…the authority of training the militia”.

Supreme Court decisions

The primary U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment cases include Robertson v. Baldwin, (1897); United States v. Miller, (1939); District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008); and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
In Heller and McDonald the U.S. Supreme Court supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which U.S. militias have historically been armed.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Of the collective rights model that holds that the right to arms is based on militia membership, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Heller, had this to say:

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.

LMW COMMENT …

Regulation or no regulation
Does the US Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, permit ALL citizens to bear ALL sorts of arms in ALL places? Clearly not. A civilized society, giving cognizance to the changes that have occurred since 1791, must therefore define and enforce …

• who can and cannot carry arms?
• what sort of weapons can be carried by private citizens?
• where and when can arms be carried and where and when not?

State or Federal regulation
Some argue that these questions must be answered ONLY by the States and that Federal legislation is inappropriate. Given, however, the free and rapid access of people and guns between states, it would seem that State regulation cannot be adequate to protect the American people from the homicidal maniacs who live among us. We need federal law and effectively enforced regulations, consistent across all states, to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of those who would murder innocent Congresswomen and judges and children.
Congress and us
Congress is likely now to consider measures to protect themselves, and they should. However, they must not focus only on their own safety. Our representatives have been elected to protect us as well. And one of the important protections we need is from the wrong guns in the hands of the wrong people.