~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~
There was another part of my previous post that I hoped would stir the emotions a bit: the Second Amendment does not regulate the right to bear arms. It regulates defense. This follows from:
1 -The internal order of the amendments: two and three belong together.
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. [5][6]
Third Amendment:
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.
2 -Legal historical interpretation. See, for example, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, that served as the template for the BoR:
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
And Hamilton's draft of the BoR:
The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of the free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
This clearly regulates defense, in particular, military service, as exemplified by the exception it creates for those with religious objection to military service.
Not a right to bear arms is granted, but the way in which government can organise defense is limited: a civil militia.
3 - Comparative legal interpretation. Similar articles to the Second Amendment can be found in other revolutionary reuplican Bill of Rights'. For Example, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1793:
The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted
This states in more elaborate wording, that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. Switzerland has (had?) a similar article, stipulating Swiss defense is to be performed by a civilian militia. As in the US Second Amendment, not a right to bear arms is protected, but the means of defense of governments are limited. Limited to, shall we say, defense by, of and for the people.
Bookmarks