Here’s a page that more or less jives with my understanding of things:
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/militia.html
Essentially, at least Jefferson believed that “the militia” was (quoting from the page now: ) “Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50”. In short, the phrase “the people” in the 2nd means exactly the same thing it means in the 1st - everyone who’s a citizen of the US.
Further quotage from the page:
“The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”
This is kinda cute - I’m required by the government to own a gun whether I want to or not? I thought a right was something I could choose to do, or not, as I pleased. Something I am required to do is not a right, it is a duty. This is like saying that since I can vote, I am therefore required to do so by law. Needless to say, I don’t agree with Jefferson here.
The page ultimately argues that the militias referred to in the 2nd Amendment are controlled by the state governor, and since he takes his orders from the president, the prez is de facto in control of all the state militias. This would seem to imply a National Guard like structure much like what we have today.
Still, I don’t see why the existance of the National Guard in the first part of the amendment is incompatable with the rest of the plain language of the 2nd amentment, which I read as quite clearly saying that citizens have a right to bear arms:
http://www.mcsm.org/english.html
Basically, as I read the 2nd amendment, here is what I see:
“Since we need militias to ensure our country’s freedom, american citizens will have the right to keep and bear arms.”
Implicit in the definition of “militia” is the idea that the militia is all able-bodied citizens. Further implicit in the amendment as a whole, is the concept that since the militia could be composed of anybody and/or everybody, anybody and/or everybody needs to have the right to bear arms so they’ll have a gun to use if they’re called to serve in the militia.
So in my opinion, the 2nd creates two things: A) The National Guard (the first part), and B) The right of all citizens to keep and bear arms so they can serve in the militia (the second part).
Now, I’ve been deliberately not stating what exactly I think a “right to keep and bear arms” means. Does it cover concealed carry? Does it include only militia arms, such as rifles or pistols that our soldiers carry into battle? On the former I would say no, on the latter I would say yes. But I think I’m fairly happy to leave the exact t-crossing and i-dotting to the courts on this one. Let them hash it out, that’s what they’re around for.
Nor do I think that, since all citizens are guaranteed the right to bear arms, the right to bear arms is completely and totally unrestricted. The first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, but there are still limitations on your right to free speech to guard against obvious abuse. You can’t “shout fire in a crowded theater” when there is no fire, use your speech to incite a riot, etc. I see no reason why similiar restrictions shouldn’t be upon the 2nd.
But ultimately I have to come down more on the side of the pro-gun faction than the anti-gun. It seems pretty clear to me, at least, that there certainly IS an individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. There may be reasonable restrictions put upon said right. But still, if Johnny American wants to own a gun, then provided he’s not a felon, mentally ill or someone can prove a clear and present danger in court to his owning it, then he gets it.
-Ben
