The Constitution's gun-control pledge

Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | Sept 23, 2006 | Editorial

[cryptical]

I had not heard of this guy or his book. Is he the new Bellesilles?

The editorial seems to conflate all sorts of leftist fantasies about 2nd amendment supporters beliefs, setting them up as a nice strawman to knock down. Par for the course from the 'Star and Sickle', our very own Prairie Pravda.

[rhombus]

OK, let's look at the ENTIRE 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.

My reading is that the right of the poeople to keep and bear arms was NECESSARY since a free state depends on the people to form regulated militias. It does not say arms should be regulated but that the people have a right to their arms.

[M-cubed]

It's far more interesting, he thinks, to look back to learn what this country's founders actually thought about gun regulation.<<

now if they'd only find out what the founding fathers really meant about ALL OF the Constitution (the Federalist papers is a good start)and decide if its an "ever-changing" document or not!!!

[Robert A Cook PE]

IF he is a legitimate historian he would drive up the road to Williamsburg VA (where ALLL the VA leaders met, lived, ate, and talked and taught, and realize that Williamsburg, in THEIR lifetime was the center of protest and demands for NO regulation of private arms, and actual rebellion when the Brit's tried to take the cannon and arms at the Williamsburg armory FROM them.

if he is pretending the colonists wanted MORE government tyranny and control over arms (up to and including cannon and shells) he is lying.

[Nathan Zachary]

"It's far more interesting, he thinks, to look back to learn what this country's founders actually thought about gun regulation.<<

It's what's written down that matters. Not what someone THINKS they wanted to write.

I read it as the militia's being regulated, and the citizens having the right to bear arms.

[absalom01]

He's the current Joyce Foundation sock puppet. Heads up the "Second Amendment Research Center" at Ohio state.

Link here:

http://www.secondamendmentcenter.org/about_us.asp

Rust never sleeps.

[beltfed308]

Nowhere does the author address the "shall not be infringed" thingy.

[umgud]

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

[Nathan Zachary]

"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."

They do that already.

[Jim Noble]

I am a radical pro-gun nut.

I wish the "well-regulated militia" clause wasn't there, but it is.

I assume, at a minimum, that this clause means that the purpose of the "RKBA" is related, in some way, to the necessity of well-reguated militias to the security of a free state.

[SJSAMPLE]

"regulated" at that time meant "trained".
That first, SUBORDINATE clause wasn't about controlling firearms, it was about a trained militia.

[tcostell]

Deconstructionist dribble. He's come up with a new cute way to say that power inevitably resides with the government and not the individual.

And if he feels really strongly about it, he's welcome to check my tagline and "Come and take em."

[PhilipFreneau]

Saul Cornell is just another lying liberal.

[Morgan in Denver]

My guess is he's trying to sell his book. This myth has been debunked over and over. On anything for gun controls, link to http://www.i2i.org and read what David Kopel has on it.

[SJSAMPLE]

It's a subordinate clause that every scholar of the English language has agreed means nothing to the rest of the Amendment. It places no requirements nor any restrictions upon "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

[Disambiguator]

"regulated" at that time meant "trained".

This bears repeating.

"Regulated" means conforming to a standard, and in the context of the 2A has nothing to do with restrictions on firearms ownership. If anything, it was a requirement that the militia own firearms that were well maintained and up to the task.

[Peisistratus]

"I assume, at a minimum, that this clause means that the purpose of the "RKBA" is related, in some way, to the necessity of well-reguated militias to the security of a free state."

You'd assume correctly.

A well-read electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

It's presented as a REASON that the people may be armed. In fact, the "letters of marque and reprisal" power of the Congress would indicate that "arms" has no limits - as that requires privately-owned warships.

[Disambiguator]

First, a calming caveat: Saul Cornell doesn't want to take away your guns.

The fact that this line was in the article indicates that the opposite is probably true. Kind of like a used-car dealership called "Honest John's".

[SJSAMPLE]

But, remember, that first clause REQUIRES NOTHING.
It's a statement, nothing more.

[William Tell]

From the linked article: "The reason the high court hasn't heard a case regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment in so long," says Cornell, "is that it's considered one of the most settled issues in American law."

He's actually almost correct here.

The Supreme Court, in US vs. Miller, basically decided that a moonshiner has the right to carry any arms suitable for use by a militia. This case was not about the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but rather that there might be some arms which are not protected because they are not suitable for use by a militia.

Unfortunately, the lower courts have lied about the meaning of this decision, with silent support from later Supreme Courts, resulting in having some of our federal appeals courts in direct contradiction to others. The author's contention that the Second Amendment is "settled law" is quite mistaken.

The key decisions from the Ninth Circus and the Fifth Circuit courts are completely opposite readings of the Second Amendment.