We all have a right to bear arms
By either ignorance or intent we see the same misinformation, like the recent letter by George Schroll regarding the Second Amendment interpretation of the militia clause being exclusive for the right to possess and bear arms (”We’re not all members of a militia,” Feb. 24). It is a dangerous path that takes us to redefining all our rights. The Second Amendment is the only one that is being attacked to stifle our right while consistently expanding all others to include what was not intended, such as citizenship of children born in America even if the mother was just visiting.
The Second Amendment did not establish a new right, they always had this stemming from English common law of 1689; it was to prevent the government from taking it away. That is why it states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As far back as 1876 the Supreme Court ruled that “these rights weren’t granted or created by the Constitution, they existed prior to the Constitution” (U.S. v. Cruikshank). The militia clause is not exclusive but meant to be inclusive to allow the states to draw upon the armed people for defense, including against a tyrannical government.
The definition has been made clear by the co-author of the Amendment, George Mason, when asked: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.” This interpretation has been confirmed by Supreme Court decisions as in 2008 when it struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act as unconstitutional. In essence they agreed with the Court of Appeals that the Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.”
The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.