[ml/nj]

There is more to the Second Amendment than just the last 14 words. Most of the debate on the Amendment has focused on its final phrase and entirely ignores the first phrase: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ." And to dissect the Amendment is to destroy its context. While some scholars have suggested that the Amendment gives individuals the constitutional right to bear arms, still others have argued for discarding the Amendment as irrelevant and out of date. However, the vast majority of constitutional experts agree that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to apply only to members of state-run, citizen militias.

The "first phrase," as it is referred to here, is a preamble to the 2nd Amendment - just as "We the People ... in order to provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare ...," is a preamble to the Constitution itself. But this Preamble has long been held to "convey no law." So why should the preamble to the 2nd amendment convey law?

And if there were no 2nd Amendment at all? Which part of the Constitution grants the Federal Government any power concerning the ownership of any firearm by any citizen?

ML/NJ

[Southack]

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Rifleman]

The "State's Rights" interpretation of the 2nd is just sophistry by disputants who know that their possition is not tenable. If we take that possition seriously, such questions as, "May Louisiana have its own nuclear armed warplanes, under the 2nd Amemdment? And if not, why not?" have to be answered. And they have no useful answers for such questions. Under such an interpretation, there could be almost no limits that the Federal Government could place on the choices that a state might make about arming its militia forces.

Of course, the "State's Rights" formulation is not meant to be taken seriously as Constitutional Law. It is used only as a squid uses its ink...to obscure.