In my previous post about State Senator E.J. Pipkin and gun rights, ShoreThings made a comment about the context of the Second Amendment and completed the actual wording, which includes the portion about a “well-regulated Militia.” Later interpretations have taken this clause to mean an organization such as the National Guard as the “well-regulated Militia” in question, subordinating individual rights.
The District of Columbia has attempted a similar argument at the Supreme Court, where the question to be decided is (according to Wikipedia):
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
My response takes a little different tack in talking about context – not of the times, but of the document itself.
Since you placed the whole Second Amendment out there to talk about the militia, please regard the context in which the amendment is placed.
The 1st Amendment protects religion, speech, the press, free association, and redress of grievances.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens a right to self-defense against a tyrannical government.
After the right to self-defense, the 3rd Amendment goes further in prohibiting armed agents of the government free reign in the home.
That security extends to persons, houses, papers, and effects with the Fourth Amendment.
Amendments Five through Eight insure that the government has the burden of proof in cases where one is accused of a crime and that punishment needs to fit the crime if the person is convicted by a jury of his peers.
Amendments Nine and Ten reserve rights not specifically granted to the federal government to the people and the states, respectively.
In my view, any federal gun control laws circumvent not only the Second Amendment, but also the Ninth and Tenth. All of these were placed for a reason, to attempt to insure that no tyrannical government such as the 18th century British Crown would ever again taint American soil. But there’s a lot of people in DC attempting to.
That refers in some part to the SCOTUS case I cite above but to those in the nanny state who think they know better than we do. So hopefully that answers your comment in a proper manner.
I also ran across another comment on Red Maryland taking me to task for “shoddy reporting.” But the context and argument I was making had little to do with Pipkin’s Second Amendment record and stand, which indeed is admirable (except I’d rather see him work for not simply enforcing federal gun laws but for rolling them back), rather it’s for the reach that he made to equate a difference in opinion he has with Senator Harris on Sunday hunting into disdain for gun rights. In that respect, both candidates have found favor with pro-Second Amendment groups.
But I applaud both commentors in these posts for taking the time to respond and advance their counter-arguments. Keeps me on my toes.
Crossposted on Red Maryland, to the chagrin of some.