Kansas
07-26-2008, 11:45 PM
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2008/jul/26/nth_battle/
The nth battle of the amendment
By Patrick Kelley (http://www.emporiagazette.com/staff/pat_ke/) (Contact (http://www.emporiagazette.com/staff/pat_ke/contact/))
Saturday, July 26, 2008
THE SECOND AMENDMENT in the Bill of Rights continues to give people fits.
Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States re-read the amendment to mean the District of Columbia could not bar its residents from owning handguns, which called into question any number of local and state laws controlling gun ownership and sales.
This is the amendment in full:
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.
Well, that seems clear enough ... sort of. It has two more commas than it needs, but they really don’t change the meaning.
It is clear that Americans have the right to own guns. For what purposes they may own them is not as clear.
Gun-rights advocates tend to read the last half of the amendment as the whole amendment. Gun-control advocates like the first half better, choosing to read the amendment as a justification for government creation of militias — what we call today the National Guard.
But both halves are part of the same amendment and cannot be separated.
It is reasonable to assume that Congress’ intention in the amendment was to declare that people had the right to own guns because in case of emergency — say rebellion, Indian attack or foreign invasion — the people would be called upon to defend their country. In that case, it would be better if people already knew how to shoot and best if they already had guns. In those days, Congress did not think that money grew on taxpayers. To a poor, lightly populated nation strung out along the Atlantic coast, the idea of self-armed soldiers on every farm and in every settlement must have been attractive.
Certainly, times have changed, as the gun-control people point out. The United States has a large national army and well-organized militias in every state. The government supplies the weapons for all of these troops and soldiers are not, in fact, allowed to bring their own guns from home.
While the times have changed, the Second Amendment has not, and it will remain in force until an amendment is passed to repeal or change it or until the republic falls. Gun-rights advocates are on solid legal ground with gun ownership.
But the final legal opinion on the rights of federal, state and local government to control gun ownership has not been written. Future courts will revisit the issue and controls on the ownership of firearms will tighten and loosen as the decades pass.
Someday, justices may decide that every American should be issued a gun at age 18, or that possession of a gun automatically obligates the owner to National Guard training and service.
Someday, a judge, reasoning that a “well regulated Militia” has a responsibility to know what arms are available in case of emergency, may order registration of every firearm in the nation.
The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution. But what Americans think about that right could keep lawyers and lobbyists busy for centuries to come.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
The nth battle of the amendment
By Patrick Kelley (http://www.emporiagazette.com/staff/pat_ke/) (Contact (http://www.emporiagazette.com/staff/pat_ke/contact/))
Saturday, July 26, 2008
THE SECOND AMENDMENT in the Bill of Rights continues to give people fits.
Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States re-read the amendment to mean the District of Columbia could not bar its residents from owning handguns, which called into question any number of local and state laws controlling gun ownership and sales.
This is the amendment in full:
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.
Well, that seems clear enough ... sort of. It has two more commas than it needs, but they really don’t change the meaning.
It is clear that Americans have the right to own guns. For what purposes they may own them is not as clear.
Gun-rights advocates tend to read the last half of the amendment as the whole amendment. Gun-control advocates like the first half better, choosing to read the amendment as a justification for government creation of militias — what we call today the National Guard.
But both halves are part of the same amendment and cannot be separated.
It is reasonable to assume that Congress’ intention in the amendment was to declare that people had the right to own guns because in case of emergency — say rebellion, Indian attack or foreign invasion — the people would be called upon to defend their country. In that case, it would be better if people already knew how to shoot and best if they already had guns. In those days, Congress did not think that money grew on taxpayers. To a poor, lightly populated nation strung out along the Atlantic coast, the idea of self-armed soldiers on every farm and in every settlement must have been attractive.
Certainly, times have changed, as the gun-control people point out. The United States has a large national army and well-organized militias in every state. The government supplies the weapons for all of these troops and soldiers are not, in fact, allowed to bring their own guns from home.
While the times have changed, the Second Amendment has not, and it will remain in force until an amendment is passed to repeal or change it or until the republic falls. Gun-rights advocates are on solid legal ground with gun ownership.
But the final legal opinion on the rights of federal, state and local government to control gun ownership has not been written. Future courts will revisit the issue and controls on the ownership of firearms will tighten and loosen as the decades pass.
Someday, justices may decide that every American should be issued a gun at age 18, or that possession of a gun automatically obligates the owner to National Guard training and service.
Someday, a judge, reasoning that a “well regulated Militia” has a responsibility to know what arms are available in case of emergency, may order registration of every firearm in the nation.
The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution. But what Americans think about that right could keep lawyers and lobbyists busy for centuries to come.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor