by John Young
Advocates of civilian disarmament (a/k/a gun control) routinely argue that unlike the other provisions in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment guarantees a collective, rather than individual right to keep and bear arms. Such advocates typically reach conclusions that are outrageous if taken on their face. For example, that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the right of the government to be armed.
The matter has not been deeply explored by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. Appeals courts have been divided on the matter, with the 9th Circuit ruling the Second Amendment to be a collective right, and the 5th Circuit ruling the Second Amendment to protect an individual right.Rulings favoring a collective interpretation are often painful to read, because they are formulated by a group of judges who are well aware that the plain language of the Second Amendment clearly supports an individual right. But they also have a political reason to reach the exact opposite conclusion. So their logic is flawed, their reasoning tortured, and their examples are stretched. Reading such rulings can be an intellectually painful experience.
But on March 9, 2007; the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling on the Second Amendment that was not only correct in its conclusions, but thorough in its analysis. The logic, reasoning and research that went into the ruling were shining stars of honest judicial analysis.
The court concluded, regarding the Second Amendment:
“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.”
The Justices in this case are to be applauded for their honest analysis of an issue that has been made contentious by dishonest people who seek to disarm the American public.
The entire decision, an excellent piece of analysis, can be downloaded http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/dccourt04_7041a.pdf.
To find out more about preserving America’s Bill of Rights, you should consider visiting the following sites and/or organizations. This should not be considered as our unqualified endorsement of them, or their endorsement of us!
http://www.secondamendment.net
http://www.wagc.com