Sunday, April 10, 2016

What Does the Second Amendment Mean?

A well written essay, well worth reading, Professor Deming.

It's one of the most controversial passages of the Constitution. Allegedly, it's also one of the most obscure and unintelligible sections. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "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."

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), we were told for decades that the Second Amendment did not guarantee or even refer to an individual right. Based on the wording of United States v. Miller (1939), the theory was promulgated that the Second Amendment protected only State's rights to maintain organized militia. One problem with this curious interpretation is that States don't have rights, they have powers. But there's nothing new about twisting the truth into a pretzel so that it conforms to a dogmatic ideology. Some people still doggedly maintain that the Second Amendment does not refer to an individual right. Among these persons are some judges on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In clear defiance of the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit recently announced that "states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms."


Anonymous said...

The only problem with this idea is that at the time the constitution was written the original intent was that the people in the militias used their own firearms because the government did not own any arsenals to issue weapons from. If you were in a militia you used your own weapon. since it was our original military then personal weapons were military grade. If you read more of the original intent in the constitution you will find that the government was not permitted to keep a standing army for more than two years at a time. it required an act of congress to declare war and call up the militia.

Anonymous said...

The misconception of states having the right to make laws is shot down by the tenth amendment. the tenth amendment clearly states if it is covered in the federal constitution the states have to honor what is written Shall not infringe is written in the federal constitution therefore the states have no authority to infringe. The constitution also states the rulings of the supreme court are the highest authority so lower courts have no authority to over rule the supreme court or it would not be called the supreme court lower court rulings that conflict with the supreme court are by fact null and void. the supreme court rulings are the law of the land , that means all states, territories and possessions must comply. According to American Jurisprudence any judge that fails to comply with the written laws is no longer a judge and must resign or be impeached and removed. the term activist judge only designate a corrupt judicial officer that is pending impeachment and removal.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, the libs keep trying to change the rules of grammar and the definition of words so the 2A can be re-interpreted to mean something it doesn't. It was very clear for about 150 years, the RIGHT was for the people and the states couldn't infringe on it.