Is this the most logical interpretation of the Second Amendment?

[All Along The Watchtower]

My interpretation:

"Since a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State, it is critical that the right of the People to keep and bear arms is not infringed by the federal government (and by extension, state and local governments)."

Based on the historical context of Colonial, Revolutionary, and post-Revolutionary America.

Discuss.

[Free Bird]

I'd say so. People construe it with the right to create a military. I'm pretty sure it was actually intended for the PEOPLE to be the militia, and the comma after State justifies the rights of the collective populous, not just the military, to own weapons.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Not a bad reading. In terms of history, there are 2 important considerations: the history of the militia in England and the history of the right to privately own weapons in England.

In both Anglo-Saxon times and post-1066 England, a considerable amount of community policing was done by the militia. The militia is probably best described as a quasi-public body, because originally participation for most was a compulsory duty (like jury duty), which is why it had legitimacy. Each member was required to own their own private weapon for this, so that they could assemble wherever needed, instead of having to go to a central armory first. Even today, criminal enforcement in every village in Britain is centrally controlled in London, so back in the old old days, local militias were needed to police more isolated areas. Having the militia be composed of most everyone was a way to affirm its legitimacy; requiring most people to join acts as a safeguard against factionalization and abuse of an armed body. In England, there are several examples of monarchs (and Cromwell) attempting to undermine the effectiveness of the militia by selectively arming/disarming citizens based on religious faction. While the militia was not needed in England as much during the colonial period, the same general duty was carried over in America, and was much more important on the vast frontiers.

Most of the rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights originated from rights enumerated in special English statutes. In this case, the right of the people to keep and bear arms originates in the English Bill of Rights, although it was narrowed to only include protestants. The English Bill of Rights was motivated by the excesses of Charles I + 2 and James 2, and approval of the document was a condition of non-English William of Orange taking the crown during the Glorious Revolution. The English right to arms, as enumerated in the English Bill of Rights, was based on several sources. You had the rule I mentioned about owning a weapon for militia service, but you also had common law precedent for using private weapons lawfully in self-defense. Blackstone wrote that the right served a dual purpose and could be exercised in 2 ways: 1 civic and 1 individual. The right could be exercised collectively, by serving in the militia, but also individually, such as the common law protection of weapon use for self-defense. Assuming the Drafters of the Constitution followed the dual rights analysis, (which the wording, history, and practice all support), then your interpretation sounds OK.

The 2nd Amendment has 2 clauses. The prefatory clause is basically just a value-laden statement of inspiration loosely meaning: "Because the universal militia is important to keeping the government safe ...". The operative clause however actually lists the right being protected: "the right of the people (everyone individually) to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons)." There is no conditional language, so in word math its  basically: Because we want X, then Y. If it were conditional it would read: Y, so long as it promotes X or If for the promotion of X, then Y.

I can provide more details or citations later if anyone cares. Not sure if anybody knows it, but I like the 2nd Amendment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While the legislative history of the 2nd Amendment doesn't bar the dual rights theory, I wouldn't say it unequivocally supports it.  The 1st Congress considered several more explicit versions and failed to use them.  Not that I think recent cases require the right to bear arms to be construed as an individual right to reach their conclusions.  Heller stands equally well on a civic right basis, as the minority was completely off its rocker to conclude that a civic right can be required to be exercised only thru a government sponsored entity.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Heller stands equally well on a civic right basis, as the minority was completely off its rocker to conclude that a civic right can be required to be exercised only thru a government sponsored entity.

This definitely seems to be a source of confusion for a lot of critics who blur the concept of militia (which is supposed to be composed of most people) with the U.S. National Guard (which is simply a reserve component of the U.S. military).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I think it can be argued that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means nothing else than the right of the People to mainain a well regulated militia for their common security.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I think it can be argued that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" means nothing else than the right of the People to mainain a well regulated militia for their common security.

The thing is, a lot of State Bills of Rights that were passed contemporaneously with or soon after the Constitution do limit their State right to keep and bear arms in such a way. In Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 (1840), the Tennessee Supreme Court interpreted its state’s constitutional right to “keep and bear arms for the common defense,” as applying only to collective defense against insurrections and tyrants.  Contrasting it with the text of the Second Amendment, which imposed no condition upon the individual exercise of the right to bear arms, the court reasoned that the right enumerated in the Tennessee Constitution was narrower.  Because the condition for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of a general and public nature (the common defense), the Tennessee right only applied to “the people rising up for their common defense, to vindicate their rights.”  But again, the federal right to keep and bear arms does not have conditional language; the only language of limitation in the 2nd Amendment is imposed upon the government, not the people.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is also NOT one of the many private groups calling themselves.

Very true. People forget that the Constitution specifically says that the President is also commander in chief of the militia as well as the military. While I support the right of private groups to train in the absence of government-organized training, a small faction cannot claim any sort of legitimate authority to exercise governmental power, especially if it self-selects its own members and keeps others out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it would depend on how incidental the sweep is. The exercise of a right is often intertwined with money/ property, so it'd have to be for a narrowly focused purpose unrelated to the right itself. I doubt a judge would rule that even though the first amendment prohibits Congress from banning speech, that Congress can pass a law that says no one may spend more than $500 on protest signs carried in interstate commerce. And I doubt that a judge would say that Congress cannot stop Muslims from holding services, but that Congress could ban the sale of prayer rugs in interstate commerce. Or that you can have a lawyer, but you can't pay her for representing you.

So with guns, a law requiring Remington to test their gun designs before selling them to ensure that the barrels don't explode seems allowable. Banning the sale of ammunition because as many gun-haters say, "without them guns are almost banned" does not. Limitations on selling guns to foreign governments seems OK; limitations on selling them to adult citizens who have not undergone any sort of judicial sanctioning does not. Im not necessarily proposing a predictable test since its dependent on the scope and purpose of each regulation. But I think if you look at general Supreme Court attitudes towards commercial regulation as a backdoor to restricting the bill of rights, it's not far off.

[Famous Mortimer]

I've always read it as "Since everyone agrees the government should have guns, we should let people have guns too"

That said, I don't think that's a good policy. I just think that's what it says. It's very poorly worded though.

[I’m not Stu]

It is the most logical. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the people's right to bear arms.