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.
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.
One problem: in law, if you say who cannot do something, then it leaves open the door for everyone else but that entity to do it.Congress shall pass no law restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Then there should have been no problem with incorporation and any gun controls would have required Constitutional Amendment. Entirely different history since 1934!
At the time, the militia was called to support the skeleton of a military we had in place. For most intents and purposes, the militia was a government controlled body of armed personnel.toreskha ---- "...a martial check from the people". You do not understand - The Militia - IS THE PEOPLE! You are confusing the Military, a government controlled body of armed personnel, with the Militia (the whole of the People), which is covered by the Second Amendment (the very essence of the Second Amendment!).
I know, but I'm willing to go with a little redundancy if it means I could carry freely if this hypothetical 2A revision were to get accepted.Also, "keep, bear and carry arms" is redundant; bear and carry have the same meaning in the current Second Amendment. Ain't debate fun though!
One problem: in law, if you say who cannot do something, then it leaves open the door for everyone else but that entity to do it.
Mentioning Congress also implies that it only applies at the federal level. The executive branch, judiciary, and all state and local legislatures, executives and courts at all levels will suddenly think that they can impose de facto anti-gun measures. This has unfortunately happened with the First Amendment to the point where it's just getting ridiculous. Congress can't pass any laws "respecting an establishment of religion", but certainly everyone else will get their thumbs in the pie.
To the vast majority of people who aren't lawyers, judges or politicians, the second amendment is clear in it's meaning. It obviously means that "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms and that they are also the militia. No doubt the founders anticipated the likes of Ted Kennedy or Barack Obama, so they included the "shall not be infringed" portion.
If the amendment were rewritten, including the phrase "Congress shall pass no law" would be a mistake. Anti-gunners would then say that everyone else, cities, counties, states, regions, etc. could pass gun laws.
How about: The people have the right to keep and bear arms. No law shall abridge that right.
Theres no need to put in specifics such as self defense, security, for the common defense, hunting, etc. Some anti will just think of a situation not mentioned and use that to get their foot in the door.
In my example the people simply have that right, period. The second clause simply states "No LAW", period. Everything from Congress to the local city concil is covered, because no law means NO LAW, without exception.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?