|
|
|
|
|
|
by ovao
1135 days ago
|
|
|
> Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". This is a fundamental misunderstanding. It’s not that the prefatory clause is ignored — it’s that its presence doesn’t negate the operative clause. Notably, the second amendment neither prefaces the word “people” with “sane”, “competent” or “responsible”, so it’s not entirely clear to me as to whether you’re arguing on a basis of constitutionality or on something else altogether (is it both and neither simultaneously, maybe?) |
|
|
The "shall not be infringed" part does not stand on it's own. If it did, the "well regulated militia" part would not have been written.
The claim that these are some kind of absolute, unqualified, unrestricted rights is just wrong on it's face.
The constitutional part of the argument is that — that there is a right, but it is qualified by the well-regulated militia requirements.
The fact that there is no specification of what counts as well-regulated means that we must use our knowledge of the intent of the founders, and of our own reality to make reasonable restrictions.
Since the army of the time was primarily citizen soldiers (the actual army numbering in the hundreds), they would have had some regulations and qualifications. I do not see anywhere that Washington insisted that every deranged village idiot be issued or permitted muskets. We can also use current-day standard military practice, where people qualify, are issued weapons, and have rules about where they can be carried or loaded.
And the original question is based on reasonability - are any even proposed laws actually going to infringe on the ability of a sane, competent, and responsible person to keep and bear arms (and no that does not mean instantly acquire and carry in all situations).