The Second Amendment
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:50 am
"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."
In the thread on guns, bombs, etc. Flock stated that discussing the meaning of the "well-regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment was another topic. I would argue that the meaning is relevant to the topic of school shootings, but I will agree that it is deserving of a separate thread.
The Second Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights at a time when the fear of a professional, standing army was fresh in the minds of the framers. It was also written at a time when the most common firearm (a smooth-bore musket) could shoot one round at a time, three times a minute (if you were really good at it) with an effective range of about 100 yards. A rifle would extend the range considerably, but limited you to one round at a time, two times a minute (if you were really good at it). The expectation was that in times of crisis, people would take up arms to defend the country and then return home. It was little more than ten years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights that that notion became out-dated and the U.S. began mustering its own permanent, standing army.
So where does that leave the 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century? If there truly is no limitations on the right to keep and bear arms, then shouldn't I be allowed to own a rocket launcher, or a tank, or a nuclear weapon? And if those are restricted then where are the limits on what is restricted?
It is accepted law that there are limits to the various amendments. Libel laws restrict total freedom of the press and public safety laws restrict freedom of speech (using Justice Holmes's crowded theater example). So how do we define the limitations on this amendment?
It is a long-standing legal precedent that the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment apply to the states as well as the federal government. The wording of the amendment doesn't specify that only Congress is limited in restricting weapon ownership, so how do states have the authority to do the same thing?
And the question to Flock that prompted this and is open to any and all who want to respond - what is the meaning of a "well-regulated Militia"?
In the thread on guns, bombs, etc. Flock stated that discussing the meaning of the "well-regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment was another topic. I would argue that the meaning is relevant to the topic of school shootings, but I will agree that it is deserving of a separate thread.
The Second Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights at a time when the fear of a professional, standing army was fresh in the minds of the framers. It was also written at a time when the most common firearm (a smooth-bore musket) could shoot one round at a time, three times a minute (if you were really good at it) with an effective range of about 100 yards. A rifle would extend the range considerably, but limited you to one round at a time, two times a minute (if you were really good at it). The expectation was that in times of crisis, people would take up arms to defend the country and then return home. It was little more than ten years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights that that notion became out-dated and the U.S. began mustering its own permanent, standing army.
So where does that leave the 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century? If there truly is no limitations on the right to keep and bear arms, then shouldn't I be allowed to own a rocket launcher, or a tank, or a nuclear weapon? And if those are restricted then where are the limits on what is restricted?
It is accepted law that there are limits to the various amendments. Libel laws restrict total freedom of the press and public safety laws restrict freedom of speech (using Justice Holmes's crowded theater example). So how do we define the limitations on this amendment?
It is a long-standing legal precedent that the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment apply to the states as well as the federal government. The wording of the amendment doesn't specify that only Congress is limited in restricting weapon ownership, so how do states have the authority to do the same thing?
And the question to Flock that prompted this and is open to any and all who want to respond - what is the meaning of a "well-regulated Militia"?
