Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect, rollback
9,147
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 76:
Line 76: + + + + +
Militia clause, quoting T. M. Cooley
As of 2007, people argue about the meaning of the Second Amendment, but there is no definitive answer. The latest ruling is ''Parker v District of Columbia'', in which the DC Circuit court of appeals ruled on March 9, 2007, that the [[Washington, D.C.|DC]] gun ban violated individual rights under the Second Amendment.
As of 2007, people argue about the meaning of the Second Amendment, but there is no definitive answer. The latest ruling is ''Parker v District of Columbia'', in which the DC Circuit court of appeals ruled on March 9, 2007, that the [[Washington, D.C.|DC]] gun ban violated individual rights under the Second Amendment.
==Militia clause==
The Second Amendment begins with the phrase "''A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state''". This phrase has created quite a lot of contention with those who believe this is a triumph for the regulatory state, or that it means only military members can own guns. As many of the Founding Fathers have explained, the militia is the whole people. Thomas M. Cooley's ''Principles of Constitutional Law'' explains that this right is an individual right for the whole people and why that is a benefit for themselves and for government:
<blockquote>The Right is General. - It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and ''if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check''. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.<ref>[https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_General_Principles_of_Constitutional/SkFMAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA271 The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America], Thomas M. Cooley, 1880</ref></blockquote>
==The One Comma vs. The Three Comma Debate==
==The One Comma vs. The Three Comma Debate==