2nd amendment True meaning
The second amendment is not difficult. Just say what is there instead of preconconvied notions. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people, shall not be infringed. Well regulated meant something that works properly at the revolutionary time, as they would say to clocks that kept precise and true time that they were well regulated. Militia than actually meant adult white men that would be able to call to service in an event of an invasion or rebellion. The being necessary part was detailing the first part as to what is.
The right of the people is the interesting part because it written in a way where the right was already there before it talks about. To keep and bear arms does not require revolutionary dictionary or grammar understanding. Keep means to have and bear means to be in active possessions Arms meant any weapon that may be used against the enemy and since it gives no condition, you do not need one to keep and bear one. The shall not be infringed part is the mandate on the amendment with regard to people in keep and bear arms.
An example of the structure in modern time would be ," a well informed public, being necessary for a civilized society, the right of the people to spread true information, shall not be infringed". It is important to know that there were arms regulation at the founders time, but this was at the state level where you certain hand guns restricted and canon size having laws. The first 10 amendments apply to the federal government only than as Barron v. Baltimore says. But since the 14th amendment made a majority of rights in the 10 amendment applicable to states.
The regulation would technically be unconstitutional, but the courts would not risk today's weapon with no regulation. Reading the federalist papers would help give context to the founders reason for citizens being armed. Oh, another proof against the argument about arms being for military purpose is a draft of the second amendment that the founders made but discarded for the one we have said" a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the common defense, shall not be infringed".
The right of the people is the interesting part because it written in a way where the right was already there before it talks about. To keep and bear arms does not require revolutionary dictionary or grammar understanding. Keep means to have and bear means to be in active possessions Arms meant any weapon that may be used against the enemy and since it gives no condition, you do not need one to keep and bear one. The shall not be infringed part is the mandate on the amendment with regard to people in keep and bear arms.
An example of the structure in modern time would be ," a well informed public, being necessary for a civilized society, the right of the people to spread true information, shall not be infringed". It is important to know that there were arms regulation at the founders time, but this was at the state level where you certain hand guns restricted and canon size having laws. The first 10 amendments apply to the federal government only than as Barron v. Baltimore says. But since the 14th amendment made a majority of rights in the 10 amendment applicable to states.
The regulation would technically be unconstitutional, but the courts would not risk today's weapon with no regulation. Reading the federalist papers would help give context to the founders reason for citizens being armed. Oh, another proof against the argument about arms being for military purpose is a draft of the second amendment that the founders made but discarded for the one we have said" a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the common defense, shall not be infringed".
Comments (22)
How would you interpret "for the common defence"?
Furthermore advanced weaponry might have been a rifled musket, capable of getting off a shot after reloading, so they probably did not envision military assault weapons in the hands of large numbers of individual citizens.
Times change, weaponry changes, society changes and so what served as wisdom in the 18th century may not serve us well in the 21st century.
This changed with the 14th amendment so theoretically states are no longer legally able to regulate it.
So, your contention is that they intended to never be done "revolting"?
Personally, I like that part where it refers to "the right"... something that, by the way, was never previously established. The question is, WHAT RIGHT??? No right to arms had been established in any text. It is almost like they thought that right existed before they got there!
"We grant the right to militia to keep and bear arms...but no one else"
Bill of rights 1689, one example and state constitutions, as well as others.
So if the 2nd amendment was for a militia, there would be not right to keep and bear arms for the people
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
My own view:
I think that at the time the 2'd Amendment was written, the issue of whether the young United States should create a professional standing army was being hotly debated. The alternative to a standing army was hastily raising a militia of armed citizens if the need arose. This is basically what happened during the early stages of the American revolution
The 'yes' side argued (plausibly) that a force of trained professional soldiers would be far more effective in fighting wars than a hastily assembled band of citizen solders.
The 'no' side argued (plausibly) that a force of trained professional soldiers could very easily turn against the people and become an engine of tyranny. Remember that these were people for whom the American Revolution was a living memory, for whom the British army and its Hessian mercenaries represented just such an oppressive force..
So the Framers did as they often did and compromised, favoring a situation of 'checks-and-balances'. They authorized the federal government to raise a standing army (small at first), and they guaranteed the people's right to possess arms so as to be able to defend their own liberty if need be.
As indicated in the precis of the decision, the Court's decision has three parts. The first two address the meaning and interpretation of the Second Amendment, the third addresses the particular issue that brought this particular case before the Court. This was the District of Columbia enacting a total ban on private possession of handguns.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53
In justifying this, they go into great detail about the history of bearing arms, the various disputes that had arisen about it, and British common law on the subject. Under (b), they address the more contemporary (for the Framers) issue that I outlined in my earlier post:
The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia could be preserved. Pp. 22-28.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
For example, using a weapon in commission of a crime can be illegal, felons and the mentally ill can be prohibited from possessing weapons, and it isn't illegal to require some training in use of a firearm.
3. The handgun ban... violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.
And that would seem to leave plenty of room to regulate firearm ownership and to regulate the types of arms or weapons available to the public. What is not allowed is to ban handguns entirely or require that they be rendered useless for self defense. The legislature I believe could ban ownership or sale of military assault weapons, or of armor piercing and other types of dummy ammunition, both of which would seem to be of little general use for sport hunting or self defense for that matter. The terms "arms" requires some definition as it is not likely anyone thinks individuals (members of the public) need to own tanks, bazookas, surface to air or ballistic missiles or chemical and biologic weapons. We could remove the most dangerous weapons (those most often involved in mass causality incidents) without impairing the "right" to bear arms. Such "right" requires definition as does the term "arms" so entailed.