THE SECOND AMENDMENT in the Bill of Rights continues to give people fits.
Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States re-read the amendment to mean the District of Columbia could not bar its residents from owning handguns, which called into question any number of local and state laws controlling gun ownership and sales.
This is the amendment in full:
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.
Well, that seems clear enough ... sort of. It has two more commas than it needs, but they really don’t change the meaning.
It is clear that Americans have the right to own guns. For what purposes they may own them is not as clear.
Gun-rights advocates tend to read the last half of the amendment as the whole amendment. Gun-control advocates like the first half better, choosing to read the amendment as a justification for government creation of militias — what we call today the National Guard.
But both halves are part of the same amendment and cannot be separated.
It is reasonable to assume that Congress’ intention in the amendment was to declare that people had the right to own guns because in case of emergency — say rebellion, Indian attack or foreign invasion — the people would be called upon to defend their country. In that case, it would be better if people already knew how to shoot and best if they already had guns. In those days, Congress did not think that money grew on taxpayers. To a poor, lightly populated nation strung out along the Atlantic coast, the idea of self-armed soldiers on every farm and in every settlement must have been attractive.
Certainly, times have changed, as the gun-control people point out. The United States has a large national army and well-organized militias in every state. The government supplies the weapons for all of these troops and soldiers are not, in fact, allowed to bring their own guns from home.
While the times have changed, the Second Amendment has not, and it will remain in force until an amendment is passed to repeal or change it or until the republic falls. Gun-rights advocates are on solid legal ground with gun ownership.
But the final legal opinion on the rights of federal, state and local government to control gun ownership has not been written. Future courts will revisit the issue and controls on the ownership of firearms will tighten and loosen as the decades pass.
Someday, justices may decide that every American should be issued a gun at age 18, or that possession of a gun automatically obligates the owner to National Guard training and service.
Someday, a judge, reasoning that a “well regulated Militia” has a responsibility to know what arms are available in case of emergency, may order registration of every firearm in the nation.
The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution. But what Americans think about that right could keep lawyers and lobbyists busy for centuries to come.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
No matter what else can be said about the 2nd Amendment, one thing is clear - people have an individual right to keep and bear arms. At least that much was resolved by the Supreme Court. Exactly how much regulation can be imposed, short of an outright ban, remains open. Lets hope that common sense prevails as the debate and subsequent litigation unfolds.
July 26, 2008 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
outsider (anonymous) says...
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
July 26, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
paulkersey (anonymous) says...
You can have my gun when you pull it from your cold, dead @ss.
July 26, 2008 at 10:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dml (anonymous) says...
"It is clear that Americans have the right to own guns. For what purposes they may own them is not as clear."
If you read the opinion(http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf,) you will see that they did specify "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
"Certainly, times have changed, as the gun-control people point out. The United States has a large national army and well-organized militias in every state. The government supplies the weapons for all of these troops and soldiers are not, in fact, allowed to bring their own guns from home."
Even with the armed forces, and law enforcement, why do people still get held up by burgulars? Why to people get kidnapped, raped, beated, even killed? Do guns jump up and commit these acts on their own? NO! The gun used in such an act is a TOOL used by the criminal to exert power over their intended victim. In the same way, the intended victim can use a gun as a TOOL to STOP the criminal. Some like to say, "God created man and woman. Sam Colt created them equal."
Those in the armed forces and law enforcement cannot be everywhere all the time unless every person is drafted or deputized! While law enforcement officers generally do the best job they can, in most cases they do not show up until after the crime has been committed. At that time, it is too late. They can collect evidence that hopefully leads to the apprehension and conviction of the criminal and mop up the mess left behind.
"Someday, a judge, reasoning that a “well regulated Militia” has a responsibility to know what arms are available in case of emergency, may order registration of every firearm in the nation."
The "well regulated Militia" could get around that by doing as Switzerland already does and issueing a standard military Full auto/Selective fire weapon to each person in said Militia which is already done to simplify the logistics of supplying ammunition to the troops. There are probably over a thousand different calibers of ammunition that have been invented if you include standard, obselete, and wildcat (ones someone just invented on their own) calibers of ammunition. It would be a nightmare to try to have every caliber available that may be needed.
July 27, 2008 at 1:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dml (anonymous) says...
In closing, we do not need more laws against responsible, law abiding citizens owning guns. Those laws do not burden criminals; they create victims. All you have to do is look at those who have been shot in the mass shootings in schools and other places where firearms were banned over the last few years. Federal law makes it generally illegal to carry a firearm with 1,000 feet of a school, but it did not prevent people with criminal intent and on suicide missions from shooting up the schools(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352006,00.html.) These laws only created victims out of those who were at the wrong place at the wrong time and made sure NONE OF THEM COULD DEFEND THEMSELVES!
The only thing that any type of weapon registration in the world has ever accomplished was to give those in power the knowledge of where those weapons are for when they decide to ban them so they can gain complete control over the populace. In England, there is now even a ban against pocket knives, and I have heard that there is starting to be a push for the same in some places here in the U.S.
July 27, 2008 at 1:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
webejamn (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
July 27, 2008 at 12:35 a.m. ( permalink )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
This lady says what the second amendment is about better than anyone I've ever heard..... listen to the very end - she nails it on the very last sentence....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTpSyg...
July 27, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
July 27, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink )