The Second Amendment

The DC Gun Case. Opinion. The case is now before the United States Supreme Court.

On March 9, 2007 the DC Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision essentially saying that the District of Colombia could prohibit the ownership of guns kept in one's own home. The trial court said that the right to bear arms was tied to the requirement of a well regulated militia. Since owning guns had nothing to do with a well regulated militia the guns could not be kept in one's home.

The DC Court of Appeals reversed the decision essentially saying that the District of Columbia by its interpretation of the Second Amendment would render the amendment meaningless.

I am not going to get into an extensive legal discussion. What I want to say it is my understanding of history and the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The first point I want to make is that our country and our law were based upon revolution and the disassociation of our government from a tyranical government.

The right of revolution is based on the natural rights of man. Our Constitution, even if it could, does not deny the natural rights of man. Indeed, the Constitution is based upon the natural rights of man.

So, what does the second amendment say? It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shallnot be infringed”

Our revolution and our detachment from England would not have taken place but for the fact that people in America had formed a militia and that militia used armaments. The revolution would not have taken place and the militia would not have existed but for the power of armaments owned by the members of the militia and the power of the malitia t gain armamens from others.

Thus, the militia the Constitution speaks of is the militia necessary for the security of a free State. A free State sometimes can only exist by virtue of a force of arms by a militia. With this understanding, every person has a right to keep and bear arms because every person has a right to become part of a militia and can support a militia with a their arms.

The state recognizes that sometimes revolution by a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State and the people desirous of maintaining that free State have a right to keep and bear arms and that that right cannot be infringed.

Though a State may regulate the armaments, the State may not prevent a person from having them.