Pretty twisted article that interprets the 2nd Amendment phrase “a well regulated militia” to empower government to regulate the right to keep and bear arms and require training.
“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.”
IMHO, there are a couple of ways to read the introductory clause “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” that don't empower government to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. But then, I'm not a judge or a public official, so these are just personal opinions.
1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is how the people regulate their government (the militia) and prevent its abuses (provide for the security of a free state). Said differently, the 2nd Amendment is intended to ensure that the people have the means of protecting themselves against the abuses of government and ensure that their state remains free.
2. The people are the militia and, therefore, have a right to keep and bear arms. This is consistent with the Revolutionary-era suspicion of standing armies. This view (and the 1st one), view government and the people as potential adversaries and the 2nd Amendment as a means of protecting against government overreach.
3. The introductory clause is merely a recitation of the reason for prohibiting government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The meat of the 2nd Amendment is the 2nd clause that restricts actions of government – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The introductory clause has little substantive meaning -- it is just the “why” for the restrictions placed on government (“shall not be infringed”) described in the 2nd clause. This view is consistent with an inherent right of self defense or defense against government.
“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.”
IMHO, there are a couple of ways to read the introductory clause “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” that don't empower government to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. But then, I'm not a judge or a public official, so these are just personal opinions.
1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is how the people regulate their government (the militia) and prevent its abuses (provide for the security of a free state). Said differently, the 2nd Amendment is intended to ensure that the people have the means of protecting themselves against the abuses of government and ensure that their state remains free.
2. The people are the militia and, therefore, have a right to keep and bear arms. This is consistent with the Revolutionary-era suspicion of standing armies. This view (and the 1st one), view government and the people as potential adversaries and the 2nd Amendment as a means of protecting against government overreach.
3. The introductory clause is merely a recitation of the reason for prohibiting government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The meat of the 2nd Amendment is the 2nd clause that restricts actions of government – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The introductory clause has little substantive meaning -- it is just the “why” for the restrictions placed on government (“shall not be infringed”) described in the 2nd clause. This view is consistent with an inherent right of self defense or defense against government.
