CBS) In his latest Against the Grain commentary, CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer draws a bead on the Second 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.”

Most Americans think that the Second Amendment of the Constitution provides individual citizens the right to have guns. (Which is not to say that most Americans believe that there should be a right to keep arms.)

Very, very few judges, prosecutors or government lawyers over the past 60 years (at least)have officially taken the position that an individual right to own guns exists. The normal, reigning judicial view, the one that is essentially settled law, is that the right to bear arms pertains only to the right of states form collective defenses or "well regulated militias." This is not a controversial area of the law. No gun control laws have been declared unconstitutional by courts because they violated an individual rights to bear arms.

In politics, gun control advocates believe there is only a collective right to bear arms. Gun control opponents believe citizens have a right to keep arms every bit as profound as the rights of free speech, free assembly and free worship. These are matters of civic religion.

Modern scholars and constitutional lawyers are divided on the 200 year-old question of whether the Second Amendment provides an "individual" or "collective" right, and there is no shortage of vehemence on both sides.

The NRA has bankrolled the production warehouse full of individual right scholarship -- and propaganda. However, some very independent and liberal scholars have reexamined the debate, which has really been an academic non-issue for a century, and came out on the individual rights side. It's like the nature vs. nurture debate: there ain't gonna be a winner.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, entrusted with collective security for the world's most powerful country, wants to settle the question once and for all, in a way that would eventually make it easier for individuals to have guns. Alien scientists and foreign anthropologists would be fairly mystified by this anti-Darwinian state of affairs.

Ashcroft has always believed in the individual right to have guns. His Justice Department, in an extreme break from what judges and presidents have done for decades, is trying to establish that view of the Second Amendment as the law of the land in order to eventually rein in federal, state and local gun control laws.

In footnotes to court briefing filed this week, Ashcroft’s solicitor general flatly asserted that, "The current position of the United States, however, is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." (Remember, attorneys general don’t make law; judges and Congress do.)

This was expected. Last May, the new attorney general declared his position not in a legal brief, not in congressional testimony, but in a letter to an interest group, the National Rifle Association. In November, Ashcroft reiterated his view in a memo to U.S. attorneys across the country.

Now another round has been fired. And there are a few federal judges shooting at the same target. Second Amendment law has moved like a glacier for more than a century. The Supreme Court last dealt with the issue directly in 1939 when it clearly backed they collective, no-individual right position. Now that glacier is under a sun lamp and it’s melting fast.

So the time for pussy footing around is over. It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment. Bag it.

What the founders intended is unknowable. Objective truth about the meaning of the Second Amendment does not exist. Practical consensus about its meaning will not endure. The concept of "well regulated militia" is an anachronism in the 21st century.

So let’s get rid of it and address the life and death issues of gun control directly, away from the shadows and phantoms of civic theology. We do just that with other extremely dangerous mechanical devices that individuals use -- cars, boats, airplanes.

At least one key player in this battle thinks tinkering with the Constitution is no big deal -- John Ashcroft. During his six years in the Senate, he sponsored seven constitutional amendments -- a ban on abortion, a ban of flag burning, for a line-item veto, mandated balanced-budgets, super-majorities for tax increases, term limits and an amendment to make it easier to amend the Constitution.

Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is Editorial Director of CBSNews.com based in Washington.

Constitutional Amendments 1-10: The Bill of Rights Note: The following text is a transcription of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment 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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

So, every instance in the Bill of Rights where it says the people means individuals, except in the 2nd Amendment it means the Militia.

Every other Amendment protects individual rights from government over reach, except the 2nd Amendment. Why would the founders feel the need to protect a branch of government in something called the Bill of Rights?

Most Americans think that the Second Amendment of the Constitution provides individual citizens the right to have guns.

They are right - it is clearly spelled out in the constitution as an INDIVIDUAL right. The Bill Of Rights are all INDIVIDUAL rights, not the rights of states.

However, some very independent and liberal scholars have reexamined the debate, which has really been an academic non-issue for a century, and came out on the individual rights side.

See, I told you so. Even 'liberal scholars' have to agree when they are forced to think rationally instead of emotionally. Think INDIVIDUAL BILL OF RIGHTS Dickie. Think, its not that hard.

So the time for pussy footing around is over. It's time to repeal the Second Amendment. Bag it.

Thanks for the ruling, Mr. 'god' Myer, but why don't you stuff it.

What the founders intended is unknowable.

BS

Start by reading the Federalist Papers, writings of Thos. Jefferson, James Madison, et. al. It's pretty clear if you have any kind of reading comprehension.

So, let's take ten paces and draw.

No need for that. The constitution and declaration of independence clearly spells out my inalienable rights as a human and an American citizen. Your only recorse is a constitutional convention. Try it and see how far it gets. These liberal maroons just dont give up.

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.