Kingsley:
I swear sometimes I think you just like to stir up a commotion - like pitching a hand grenade into a chicken coop. Perhaps thats what journalists do.
I digress.
The prime example of an explanation of the Constitution is the federalist papers. While they pre-date the Bill of Rights by some 10 years, every time the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is discussed, there is no doubt that the right is considered an " individual right". Justice Joseph Story's Constitutional Commentaries, 1833, ( Ill get better cites if you wish ) left no doubt abpout the situation in that era.
The jurisprudence springing from interpretation of the 13 and 14th Amendments, when laws to disarm and prevent the voting of ex-slaves were overturned, the right of these new citizens to " keep and bear arms" " was right up there with the right to vote. And, as Pete rightly points out, the Congress even came to that conclusion in 1982.
This "collective" rights idea is a pernicious falsehood.
The states are sovereign, and always had the right to keep militia. The right to have a militia is imbedded in the main text of the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 8 - Powers of Congress, gives Congress the power to " To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article 1, Section 10- Powers Prohibited of the States, prohibits them from keeping " Troops", ie, regular armed forces. The states are not prohibited "militia".
Note that the existence of the militia is in no doubt, and the States maintain the authority to train them, in accord with the regulations from Congress ( in modern times, US Army and US Air Force regulations, as the case may be).
Any proposition that Amendment II was anything other than what it, in plain English, appears to be, is silly at best. In a litany of individual rights, which are referred to as rights of " The People", is it logical that the term " The people"... means in every instance an individual, except in Amendment II, where it is p[ropsed to actually mean " the States".
That is silly on the face. If the word " People" and the Word" State" are synonyms, we should be able to perform a word for word substitution, and arrive at a reasonable phrase. Lets take that one out for a spin, shall we?
" ... The right of The State of Texas to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
" ... The right of The State of Oklahoma to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Ok lets think about this. The above phrases are basically nonsense.
1) A state, being a political unit, cannot "bear" arms. Only men, individuals, can BEAR arms.
2) Article 8 does not give the Congress the power to limit the militia of the states, other than making sure that their discupline and training regimen meets a particular standard, but even this acknoledges the states right to have a militia, and to appoint the officers and control the militia.
3) Article 10 says the States cannot have a regular Army. A Militia is not a regular Army.
4) Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
A lovely restatement of the restrictions on the Congress. Hmmm... I think that puts the kibosh on the proposition. No where does the Constitution prevent the States from having a militia. If that is so, then the purpose of the Second Amendment, Amendment II, "The Palladium of our Liberties", as Mr. Justice Story put it, must be what it in plain English says.
It sure does upset a bunch of folks, and confuses a lot of our friends, but by golly, thats one of those things that makes us Americans, and me a Texan.
Unlike so many British and Canadians, I do not think like a subject, I don't need Bobby Peel or the friendly Mountie to protect me, and I will not be placed in the position that I cannot do it myself. Being "free" is much more than being a well-tended and watered sheep.
Regards
Gregory K. Taggart
