Setanta wrote:The second amendment reads, in its entirety:
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.
I make the point about quoting the amendment in its entirety, because the gun lobby likes to ignore the first clause, and especially the phrase "well regulated." In the context of the history of American jurisprudence, appellate courts and the Supremes have recognize that this refers to Article I, Section 8 of the constitution, which enumerates the powers of Congress, and reads, in part:
Congress shall have the power . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
I understand your point, but wonder--if you are correct in your interpretation--why anyone thought it necessary to amend the Constitution to provide for a right you claim the Constitution already covered.
I can accept your assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is
necessitated by the requirements of Article I, section 8, but you seem to read the 2nd amendment as simply
amplifying that section of the Constitution. But doesn't it do more than that? In recognizing that the people needed the right to have guns (because the government might need those people to have guns) the government gave THE PEOPLE that right by way of the Second Amendment. The language of the second doesn't simply tell us that the people have the right to keep and bear arms
at the pleasure of the government, but that they have this right
without constraint--that it "shall not be infringed".
I am happy to agree with you that their intent in proffering this right to the people was to make sure those people had guns when the government needed them, BUT the fact remains that the language with which they bestowed that right upon THE PEOPLE does not appear to allow for the types of gun control legislation of which you wrote. The intent of the second amendment appears to be to ensure that the government doesn't shoot itself in the foot (no joke intended) by denying people the right to own guns the government might later need them to own.
<enter musing mode>
Of course, this whole debate could be solved by putting forth a new amendment to clarify the point. Hell, I think it would be great to have several competing amendments sent up and see if any one passed.
- One would espouse an absolute, unassailable right to keep and bear arms of any type and in any quantity.
- One would ban private ownership of guns.
- One would clearly delineate the terms under which citizens may own guns and what types and quantities of guns citizens may own.
My suspicion is that if any of these could pass, it would be the third.
Better than that would be a new amendment clearly binding the federal government's hands from legislating gun ownership in any way, and noting the right of states to do so at their pleasure.
