Individuals’ Rights to Bear Arms
Re “U.S. Backs a Right to Bear Arms,” May 8: This may not come as pleasant news for the pro-gun-control lobby, but the Justice Department’s position on the 2nd Amendment is now consistent with the original intent of the Bill of Rights.
The claim that the amendment only conferred a group right to the states to raise their own militias is difficult to defend logically. The Bill of Rights did not concern itself with the matter of the relationship between the states and the federal government. Every other amendment in that document enumerated an individual right (freedom of speech, freedom from self-incrimination, etc). For the framers to haphazardly stick in an amendment dealing with a power of the states would indicate rather disorganized thinking on their part. I doubt that was the case.
Just because the Justice Department is reversing 60 years of precedent doesn’t automatically mean the precedent was right.
Paul McElligott
Lake Forest
*
Thank you for printing the text of the 2nd Amendment, a careful reading of which resolves all controversy as to its meaning. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft’s interpretation mistakenly focuses solely on the second half of the amendment (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”) and completely ignores the first half, which sets a clear condition upon that right (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”).
The structure of the complete amendment makes clear that if the condition that is set out first is not met, then the consequent right has no foundation and ceases to exist; otherwise, why refer to a militia at all? Today, that condition is not met: a “well regulated militia” is no longer “necessary to the security” of a state, as we have a professional standing army. Since the amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is conditioned upon the need for a militia to maintain security, the fact that no such need any longer exists means that the right of the people to bear arms no longer exists, either.
I’m sure the NRA won’t be persuaded; but then I’d like to know why its members believe the authors of the amendment commenced it with that reference to a militia “being necessary,” instead of going straight to the right itself? Sloppy writing?
Michael Hickey
Palm Springs