
Original Meaning of the Second Amendment - bcathome
http://www.shmoop.com/right-to-bear-arms/original-meaning-of-the-second-amendment.html
======
pedalpete
The author brings up a very good point, particularly in this day and age 'the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed'.

However, the focus of all the discussion surrounding this issue is clearly on
guns. The citizens of the US (I'm Canadian), I suspect don't provide the same
right to those who would like to own a ballistic missile, bomb, etc. Though
the arguments regarding the case for protection of liberties could probably be
equally raised when talking about any sort of 'arms'.

Would changes to the Second Amendment have an effect on violence or crime in
the US? I suspect not, as in Canada, registered weapons are rarely used in
crimes, it is the unregistered ones that are the issues. Therefore, why do
Americans and particularly the media keep harping on the Amendement which
along with being out of date, may not be the actual root of the issues?

------
hga
The Supremes agreed 9-0 in _Heller_ that it's an individual right; I'm
reasonably satisfied that the individual vs. collective right issue is
settled.

ADDED: Since the "collective right" interpretation was of 20th Century
manufacture, the outcome was not surprising.

------
naturalethic
It makes no difference what the meaning of the amendment is. None of the Bill
of Rights actually amends the Constitution. There is no clause in the original
document that gives Congress the authority to make any law regarding
individual criminal acts occurring within a state.

~~~
hga
EDIT: the below was based on a misunderstanding of what naturalethic was
saying, it is "no longer operative".

You seem to ignoring the amendment process as detailed in Article V:

 _The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for
proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and
Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of
three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths
thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the
Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate._

And the 14th Amendment, which enforces various parts of the Constitution and
its Amendments on the states (and therefore has been used WRT "individual
criminal acts occurring within a state"), which is the subject of _McDonald v.
Chicago_ for which the oral arguments were held earlier this week.

~~~
anamax
> You seem to ignoring the amendment process as detailed in Article V

No. He's using an enumerated powers argument. He's claiming that the Federal
govt can only do things that were authorized by the constitution and that none
of the things mentioned in the BoR were things that the Federal govt can do
according.

I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the modern interpretation of the
interstate commerce and general welfare clauses say otherwise.

The 14th, which isn't part of the BoR, says that states are bound in some way
by something.

The first cases, which had to do with state govt officials silencing,
disarming, and killing freed slaves, concluded that the states weren't bound
at all by the bill of rights. That's the precedent that Chicago is pushing.

~~~
hga
Ah, yes, I should have realized that, especially as someone who considers
_Wickard v. Filburn_ (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn>) a
decision that will live in infamy.

On the other hand, it has been argued that prior to the 14th, the 2nd
Amendment ... pierced the states rights veil, you might say, although again
that's a restriction on states, not individuals, akin to the requirement that
they have a "Republican Form of Government" (small r republican, of course
:-).

