Interpreting the Second Amendment to the Constitution

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.

The question is: What was the original intent of the Second Amendment? In my opinion, the Second Amendment is a simple statement of James Madison’s well chosen words: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” means what it says: Well regulated followed by … “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  And that’s how it should be.  Every citizen has the right to protect themselves and their property and, as the Constitution clearly says… it should not be infringed but … it should be regulated in the best interests of the population as a whole.  I am not a gun owner and, have no problem with responsible citizens owning them.  What I resent in this argument is the position of the National Rifle Association (NRA) which opposes any and all regulation.  What type of country would we become if every neighbor owned an AK-47 automatic weapon or worse for protection?

The only justifiable reasons for a citizen to possess firearms are for hunting or as protection from intruders.  In either case, the ownership of a handgun, shotgun or rifle is more than adequate to satisfy these purposes.  There is absolutely no need for any civilian to own a weapon more powerful or sophisticated.  Accordingly, all handguns, shotguns and rifles should be licensed and registered to the degree necessary to match weapon to owner at the click of a computer mouse.  If we had in the past, prohibited the purchase of more sophisticated weapons many innocent victims would not have died at restaurants, universities and shopping malls.  Local authorities cannot abrogate their responsibility to maintain law and order.  We pay our taxes to employ them to do exactly that.  If guns are being sold to people who clearly should not have them, then hold the seller responsible.  Don’t blame local shortcomings on the Second Amendment. It is a pillar of our Constitution that is being abused by special interests, felons and hate groups.

The Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v Heller is merely the opening salvo in a series of litigations that will ultimately resolve what weapons and persons can be regulated and what restrictions are permissible. Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion is historic in its implications and exemplary in its reasoning.  In it, he suggests a federal ban on an entire class of guns in ordinary use for self-defense.  After reading all the opinions in the District of Columbia case, I have come to the conclusion that legal scholars are “over intellectualizing” the Second Amendment. One only has to read the biography of James Madison to understand why he chose the words that became the Second Amendment to our Constitution.  They are:

Simple and to the point.