« A Foul Crime Prevented | Main | The VRWC Returns! »
March 09, 2007
The Second Amendment in Washington DC
OK, I'm a little late with this, but what the heck, it's still March, right?
|
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights Congress of the United States THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. |
There's a little irony here. I wanted to see the exact text of the Second Amendment, in consideration of THIS story.
|
A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias. |
The story went on to predict that this decision will be referred to the full circuit of 12 judges, then appealed to the Supremes, where it has a good chance of being heard.
Annnnd... here's the complete text of the Second Amendment:
|
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. |
What's been giving everyone fits is the two phrases "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Constitution does not define "Militia". And, it is clear from the correspondence and speeches of the notables of the time (Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and others) that this was supposed to be an individual right.
Of course, one side seizes upon "A well regulated Militia", the other side seizes upon "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
I tend to come down on the side of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - if nothing else, it keeps the politicians wary - as they should be.
Posted by ward at March 9, 2007 07:06 PM