The 2nd Amendment doesn't keep government from limiting gun ownership

The 2nd Amendment doesn't keep government from limiting gun ownership

March 21, 2020; updated October 13, 2020

The founders probably did not intend to allow the government to limit citizens' right to bear arms. Firearms were a necessity back then, when law enforcement agencies were not fully established, hunting put food on the table and duals were an accepted way to settle disagreements. Yet the founders did not put gun rights in the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply says

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.

All it does is give states the right to maintain armed militias.

A gun rights activist has offered these items as evidence of the founders' belief in the individual's right to bear arms:

“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” — Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 Samuel Adams

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms. . .— Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788 Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia

The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46 James Madison, of Virginia

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

More recently, the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision in 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller "held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. . . " Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia explained this surprising interpretation by claiming that "The 'militia' comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." However,

Historian Joseph Ellis and Yale law professor Reva Siegel noted the irony that Scalia's Heller decision only makes sense in light of a living Constitution, a principle that Scalia rejected. . . While Scalia professed to be channelling the "original meaning" of the Second Amendment, Ellis argued that he actually engaged in historical interpretation informed by present attitudes, exactly as a liberal justice would. Furthermore, Ellis asserted that the truly "originalist" opinion in the Heller case was Justice Stevens's dissent, which correctly interpreted the Second Amendment in the context of maintaining state militias. (Ellis, Joseph J. American Dialogue: The Founders and Us. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2018. pp 162-164) (Wikipedia)

So rather than saying the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to bear arms, it would be more accurate to say that a 5 to 4 majority of Supreme Court justices decided that is it what it really meant.

Perhaps new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett will be open to revisiting the District of Columbia v. Heller decision. She believes the Constitution should be interpreted as written.

Send comments, questions, and tips to stevenrharry@gmail.com or call or text me at 517-730-2638. If you'd like to be notified by email when I post a new story, let me know.

Previous stories