  |
|||
|
|
|
||
|
Posted by Roger Saunders Jul 3, 2008 |
Independence and the 2nd Amendment
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.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individuals right to bear arms. The first half of the Amendment has been the anchor for those who would limit gun ownership. Their position is that the right to bear arms was specifically to arm the Militia.
Gun enthusiasts like to concentrate on the second half, claiming the militia is a separate issue. To see why five justices decided the Constitution guaranteed an individuals right to bear arms, read the Amendment again, inserting the conjunction "and" in place of the second comma. If that was what the Framers meant to do, why didn't they do that?
This is an absolutely fair question that we need to ask about any Supreme Court ruling that can potentially change the constitution without the people's consent. Our only check on the Federal Judiciary is informed voters who hold the Presidents feet to the fire to appoint Justices with integrity. Having said that, we also need to make sure our cultural differences don't infringe upon the Framer's intent. In this case, I personally feel the ruling has protected their intentions. Here's why.
There was a healthy fear, even after the Revolution was won, of a standing army. It had been the tool of tyranny in every govenment this culture had known. This was why they protected the "State's right" to have regulated Militia. Another reason I agree is that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee "individual rights" were protected. I believe the Framers were trying to say that the Militia could not be infringed by the Federal Government and that the individuals right to bear arms also had this protection.