Interpreting the Second AmendmentHow to interpret the Second Amendment - a question raised anew by the March 9 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which many believe may prompt a High Court review - is a subset of how to interpret any provision of the Constitution. Happily, one of the Federalist Founders, Alexander Hamilton, provided a very handy guide:
The Second Amendment exists to prevent the federal government, not from disarming the state governments, but from disarming the American people. The "Militia" is, at root, an armed citizenry, not an army of the state governments. True, it could fight with those governments under certain conditions: Madison, mirroring Hamilton, posits such a role should the federal government ever turn tyrannical. But we must never confuse its various roles (including defense against invasion) with its established identity, which is today still reflected in part by the "unorganized militia" clause of the U.S. Code.
Those who argue that the Second Amendment recognizes only a right of the state governments to form their own armies have had to struggle with what "the instrument itself" says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Their solution, remarkably, is to contend that the "people" who have a right under the Second Amendment are not the same "people" - namely, individual citizens ("natural persons," in legalese) - who have rights under the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. Rather, the Second Amendment refers to a "collective" - and thus to a "collective right."
... Please read the entire article; it's magnificent! I can't wait until my Missle System comes in! : )
3 comments:
Allen commented earlier:
"If militias are nothing more than collects under state control, how is Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary history to be explained? A company of militia could be formed of any group choosing to do so. Certain militia command jobs and responsibilites might be loaned to government in trade for supplies in state stores.
A truly wonderful history of militias is found at the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam, where the memebership paintings of freely subscribing members could join one of various units formed by trade associations, for instance. On the Rijks' walls are enourmous paintings of said civil defense companys. Rembrandt, among others, created icons of these citizen sholdiers,e,g, The Old Dutchmasters Cigar logo. "
Allen! That's what I get for posting pieces of an article and not relating the words properly, in context! My fault!
Militias ARE more than JUST "COLLECTS of the STATE"! The article goes on to say how they are tied intrinsically to the individual. And yes, a militia can be formed out of any group choosing to do so.
My "LIBERAL friends" here in Florida are amazed to hear that all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 ARE MEMBERS OF THE FLORIDA MILITIA! This is THE public citizen group that can be pressed into State service, by the Governor, or by public desire!
Florida Statute
Many private Militia groups exist in Florida. Some historical, some not!
As you know, most Americans don't understand that the implication of the Second Amendment. It's there not just to provide for official State Militias but also to provide the citizenry legal and valid means to organize against a tyrannical government. Our gun laws have become roadblocks to this basic freedom. Our Federal system gets stronger and stronger and our local and state communities have grown weaker. People often ask; "what's wrong with a strong Federal system"? What's wrong is that by its nature, a strong federal system becomes tyrannical. The Founding Fathers knew this, so did the Rebels from the South. I'm not convinced most Americans understand or appreciate this nowadays!
Oh! Forgot to point out!
The Second paragraph referenced in my post says:
Those who argue that the Second Amendment recognizes only a right of the state governments to form their own armies have had to struggle with what "the instrument itself" says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Their solution, remarkably, is to contend that the "people" who have a right under the Second Amendment are not the same "people" - namely, individual citizens ("natural persons," in legalese) - who have rights under the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. Rather, the Second Amendment refers to a "collective" - and thus to a "collective right."
The "People" have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, not just government organizations. The "people" as mentioned throughout the Consitution refer to each individual person. This is without question! It's strange how LIBERALS think we have individual rights ONLY for items they like but not for items they don't like. The "collective" in the author's wording means; ALL CITIZENS.
Post a Comment