“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.”

These twenty seven words and 3 commas will be argued and disected among the Supreme Court Justices, with a ruling expected sometime in June 2008.

This Supreme Court case stems from a 30 year old Washington DC law that prohibits the possession of hand guns, even in an individuals home. The transcripts from the hearing earlier this week indicate a majority of the Justices are likely to strike down the Washington DC law as unconstitutional, in favor of the interpretation that it is the right of individuals to own hand guns.

 There are 3 questions in front of the Justices.

• Was it the intent of the framers for individual citizens to keep and bear arms?
• Are State regulation and permit requirements considered infringements?
• Is the current Washington DC law unconstitutional?

None of us can claim to be able to explore the mind of James Madison, the author of the second amendment, or any of the rest of the founders, but we can try to put into context the words used, within a frame of reference consistent with events of the era.

But first, a disclaimer. I own hand guns and I want to be able to own them without threat of government infringement. I believe the second amendment was intended to protect individuals from government infringement on gun ownership. With that disclosure, here is my argument.

The opening words of the second amendment ”a well regulated militia”, refers to the citizen colonists who voluntarily enlisted under George Washington by vote of the Continental Congress to battle the British during the American Revolutionary War. The reference to ‘militia’ was a term used to describe the uprising of colonists in self defense against the British military in the absence of a formally organized military. The founding fathers understood from experience that without arms to defend against the British military they would have been subjected to unjustified taxes and the oppressive rule of the British Monarchy. 

The next stanza of the second amendment “being necessary to the security of a free state” is simply the acknowledgement that a formal military is necessary to defend, protect and secure the homeland. It can be debated what was intended by ’state’. Was this literally meant as individual states or was the intention a Federal organization. In the context of answering the 3 questions before the Justices in this case, that analysis is irrelevant. What is relevant is the framers recognized in order to be a credible government, independent of British rule and the incursions of others, they must have a citizen based militia with some semblance of structure and formality, capable of defending itself against internal and external threats.

‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms”.  Without the colonists and their personal weapons (rifles and hand guns) the American Revolutionary War would not have been possible. The founding fathers were aware of this significance and chose to specifically protect the individual citizens from government infringement. “Shall not be infringed”. In other words the amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, that right is assumed. The amendment protects people from the infringement of government on gun ownership. If gun ownership is unreasonably restricted or out lawed the only people with guns will be government and criminals. Sometimes the two are indistinguishable.

 My .02

Social Networking: