Skip to comments.
A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Virgina Institute for Public Policy, No. 7 ^
| June 2002
| Nelson Lund
Posted on 07/23/2002 12:25:34 PM PDT by 45Auto
Properly understood, the Second Amendment means exactly the same thing that it would have meant had the prefatory phrase about the militia been omitted. That prefatory phrase helps to illuminate the animating purpose of the Second Amendment, and it addressed a very specific eighteenth century political issue, but it does not create any tension or inconsistency with the operative clause, and it certainly does not alter or modify the meaning of the operative clause.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist; individualright; rkba
Posted only an excerpt; see link for full, very well written, highly documented, authoritative analysis of the 2nd.
1
posted on
07/23/2002 12:25:34 PM PDT
by
45Auto
To: 45Auto
"One of the most basic principles of American political thought-beginning long before our Constitution was made, continuing down to the present day, and unmistakably implied in the Constitution's Preamble-is that the people are sovereign, while legitimate governments are mere creatures of the people.
Treating any government as if it were the people would tacitly claim a status for the government that has never been publicly respectable in the United States."
2
posted on
07/23/2002 12:29:13 PM PDT
by
45Auto
To: 45Auto
Nobody knows what that damned preamble means, and anyone's interpretation is as valid as anyone else's. The body, however, is unequivocally clear.
3
posted on
07/23/2002 12:33:18 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: *bang_list
It's nice to see the Virginia Institute on Freedom's side.
In short, liberal writers who make their living distributing the written word and liberal talking heads who make their living with spoken words can't understand a single sentence.
Comment #5 Removed by Moderator
To: A tall man in a cowboy hat
Exactly.
The Second Amendment cannot possibly have been meant to constitutionalize a right of the states to keep up military organizations like the National Guards.
That theory implies that the Second Amendment silently repealed or amended two separate provisions of the Constitution: the clause giving the federal government virtually complete authority over the militia, and the clause forbidding the states to keep troops without the consent of Congress.
6
posted on
07/23/2002 1:00:55 PM PDT
by
45Auto
To: 45Auto
AMENDENT II 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.
Ordinary citizens have the right to own and use weaponry. Thus citizens will have tools to use to ensure the security of citizens.
7
posted on
07/23/2002 1:02:55 PM PDT
by
Prolix
To: *bang_list
bang
To: 45Auto
That theory implies that the Second Amendment silently repealed or amended two separate provisions of the Constitution: the clause giving the federal government virtually complete authority over the militia, and the clause forbidding the states to keep troops without the consent of Congress. Then how is it that states have National Guards now? Are they under Federal control or has since Congress consented?
9
posted on
07/23/2002 1:13:30 PM PDT
by
ibbryn
To: ibbryn
The National Guards were established by act of Congress
10
posted on
07/23/2002 1:15:39 PM PDT
by
harpseal
To: 45Auto
To: harpseal
The National Guards were established by act of Congress Well after the BOR and therefore there is no conflct between a well regulated militia and the National Guard.
Thank you.
12
posted on
07/23/2002 1:34:38 PM PDT
by
ibbryn
To: 45Auto
Properly understood, the Second Amendment means exactly the same thing that it would have meant had the prefatory phrase about the militia been omitted.
If that's the case, it was poor drafting. Superfluous words are generally not something you want or need in a Consttution. Every word should mean something important.
13
posted on
07/23/2002 1:41:22 PM PDT
by
BikerNYC
To: 45Auto
Subsequent developments in the technology of weapons and in military technique have rendered the armed citizen wholly impractical as a substitute for standing armies and much less potent as a deterrent to despotism.
A good read, though there are some things that I don't agree with (like the above statement).
To: ibbryn
Well after the BOR and therefore there is no conflct between a well regulated militia and the National Guard.Correct. The National Guard is a Federal organ, the militia is armed citizens.
15
posted on
07/24/2002 6:34:12 AM PDT
by
MileHi
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson