Tuesday, March 11, 2014

No militia means more intrusive law enforcement

 

Our Framers didn't envision a free state with the current level of government control.

 

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For a while, some argued that the so-called "prefatory clause" — "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" — somehow limited the "right of the people" to something having to do with a militia. In its recent opinions of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment does recognize a right of individuals to own guns, and that that right is in no way dependent upon membership in a militia.

That seems to me to be entirely correct.

More @ USA Today

 

2 comments:

  1. Anyone but me ever wonder if by "the free state" they meant to preserve the individual state of freedom, as opposed to the state of say Maryland remaining free?

    ReplyDelete