The Importance of the 2nd Amendment

Much of the following is part of a thread I was involved in a couple of years ago on a newsgroup. I wanted to get my comments on the record here.

Possession of firearms should be limited to the armed services. That *WAS* the purpose the Second Amendment--it says so in so many words.

No it doesn't, not at all. The militia is the armed citizenry. IOW, a militia is not something that you join. The militia is created by the simple existence of an armed citizenry.

There is much confusion created by the sentence construction of the 2nd Amendment. The Bill of Rights as a whole was intended to protect individual rights against infringement by the Federal government. It was based on the Bills of rights in several state constitutions which protected individual rights against infringement by state governments.

The introductory phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is intended to explain the reason that the individual right to keep and bear arms is being protected. The 2nd Amendment is unique in that it is the only amendment which has such an explanatory preamble. Even so, it does not state that the only reason for a citizen to be armed is so that he can join a militia. It is clear from contemporary writings promoting the Bill of Rights that the militia was created by the existence of an armed citizenry and not that the citizenry was armed by the existence of a militia.

An amendment to protect the right to education might be similarly written:

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."


This does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.

The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

Similarly, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is that the people from whom a necessary and well-regulated militia will be composed, shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed so that there will be an armed citizenry from which the state (and federal militias) can be drawn.

In The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

"Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Here is a quote from the case of Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886):

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government...the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms..."

When the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written, the people knew what the intent was and said so in print. As a result, anyone who can read can know what the original intent was without having to speculate.

Only one law needs to be passed, in my opinion. Reword the archaic amendment in the Bill of Rights to remove the right bear handguns, automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and use copkiller bullets. There, I've said it. I will now put on my flame retardant suit.

No flames here. I happen to agree that the only resolution to this issue is to re-write the 2nd Amendment. It will require re-writing the whole Constitution though because the Second Amendment is the primary guarantee that the will of the people can be ultimately enforced. Without the Second amendment, we are left to rely on the benevolence of the government. And it was due to a distrust in the benevolence of government that the Bill of Rights was adopted in the first place.

So while I agree that the Second amendment could be re-worded for clarification, I would favor re-wording it to make the right to keep and bear personal weapons a clear and unambiguous right of individual citizens not subject to restriction by federal, state or local government except as a result of felonious activity of the individual.

The US Constitution does not grant any rights or privileges to the citizens it serves. Rather, the Constitution is the means by which the citizens delegate power to, and restrict the power of, the government.

The freedom and liberty we enjoy in the US is protected and preserved by the Constitution. And the Constitution is protected and preserved by the 2nd amendment. Any attack on the personal right to keep and bear arms that is protected by the 2nd amendment is an attack on the Constitution itself and thus an attack on the U.S.

There are established constitutional methods in place for altering the nature of the Constitution. So far, none of the opponents of the 2nd amendment have attempted to seek such a solution. Instead, they propose ignoring the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and anything else that gets in the way of their agenda--an agenda_they intend to pursue regardless of who may disagree or get in their way.

Yes, the US is under attack...from itself. But this is healthy and serves its on purpose. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom and the stronger the attacks, the more vigilant people become.

The US is always under attack from itself. The Constitution creates a government of three parts that exist in dynamic tension. Each balances and opposes the others and through that opposition, supports the others.

It is the same with ideas. Thesis plus antithesis produces synthesis. Without such discussion of differing opinions, there is no progress.

Judiciary rulings by courts with the appropriate jurisdiction interpret and define the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and tell us how they apply. In all cases of Constitutional interpretation, the US Supreme Court has final jurisdiction.

Slander, libel, copyright, religious practices, all of these issues have been tested in court and ruled on based on the court's interpretation of the law and the 1st amendment. These rulings have helped to clarify and shape our understanding of the 1st amendment and this is a proper and necessary part of the constitutional process.

However, to date, the Supreme Court has not issued a ruling in support of a federal gun control law based on a clear interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Rather, most rulings have upheld such laws on the basis of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Until the 2nd Amendment is revised by subsequent amendment, or by Supreme Court ruling, it has to be accepted as written with the original intent of the authors.

Different groups may have differing opinions as to what the 2nd amendment actually says and what it was originally intended to say. Neither side of this discussion has the power or authority to make the final determination without amending the Constitution. Only the Supreme Court can do that and so far, it has declined to do so. But it is going to have another chance.