Hat Tip: The Volokh Conspiracy
An interesting paper in light of the upcoming Supreme Court Case deciding the constitutionality of the District of Colombia’s ban on civilian handgun ownership. This paper engages in in depth textual analysis of the second amendment, and concludes:
Whatever a well regulated militia may
be, or even if no such thing exists, the right of the people to keep and
bear arms is not to be infringed. What’s more, whether or not such
a militia can actually contribute to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms remains unaffected. Indeed,
even if it could be proved beyond all doubt that disarming the people
is necessary to the security of a free state, still the right of the people
to keep and bear arms would remain completely unchanged.
The paper also discusses some of the historical reasons why the perambulator clause, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” was included in the amendment in the first place. A great read – highly recommended.
D.C.’S Handgun Ban and the Constitutional Right to Arms: One Hard Question?
Working Through the BookLog 
Some one finally got it! the people were the militia not the national gaurd or the marines,army,air force,navy.the people. The forefathers disliked the idea of a national military,didn’t trust them. the people were the ones when attacked that were supposed to defend this nation thus the need for firearms.Even though we may not need individual firearms ownership to defend the country there may come a day to defend the people from the laws of oppression enacted by their elected represenitives.As Thomas Jefferson said a good revelution every two hundred years or so isn’t a bad thing.
Comment by W. Niklowicz — April 8, 2008 @ 6:37 pm |