How do you interpret the second amendment?

Question

Amendment II.
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.

From the United States Constitution

Answer 1

Before I begin to answer your question, James F., please allow me to address a comment or two I've already read.

To Sean G.: The question was asking about interpretation, not adjudication. By suggesting that only the courts can interpret, you are dismissing millions of years of mental evolution of the human race. Shame on you for your cynical attitude. Please allow me to exercise my 2nd amendment rights and blow your idiot head off. We need to eliminate thoughts like yours from the gene pool.

To Thomas P.: I recognize your frustration with rampant gun violence in our country, but the question then arises, what happens if only the government has arms and some charismatic rogue is in power and declares war on some segment of our society (blacks, gays, unwed mothers). Who then will have the power to thwart? Please don't say it will never happen in America. Don't be so naive.

To Netjr: Most of the Bill of Rights are individual rights, but not all of them. Some of these rights espouse freedoms "to" (do something) and others espouse freedoms "from" (having something done to us). And where are the vaunted individual freedoms from the 9th amendment?

To MetalTeK: Merely enforcing existing gun laws still allows any criminal to attend a gun show and purchase any firearm for sale without even a cursory background check. So much for existing laws.

Dear James F., contrary to what some have said, the language of the 2nd amendment is anything but clear, for if it were so obvious there would not have been all this hullabaloo over its meaning. The sentence, in classic 18th century diplomatic newspeak, is convoluted and strains educated parsing. Almost without pause, the author of this amendment begins by speaking to the necessity of a militia and suddenly we are presented with people bearing arms. The people (that means you and me, dear James F.) are referred to in the second half of the sentence. What we now call the National Guard is referred to in the first half. Everyone knows that not all the people belong to the National Guard, so is the author saying not only do the individual states have the right to their own National Guard, but also every single person within that state may arm themselves as a counterbalance to such National Guard? This is certainly convoluted thinking - unless you think like an 18th century politician who recently came out of a revolution and was trying to revive an almost defunct Confederacy.

Nowhere is this topic fully explored in the papers of the Founders. The closest is Alexander Hamilton's tract of 10 Jan 1788 for the "Daily Advisor" of New York, generally referred to as Federalist Paper No. 29, wherein he speaks exclusively of the militia, not of the rabble.

Typically in English grammar, that part of a sentence which contains the most weight is accorded its primary meaning. Which then has more weight, the necessity of the security of a free state, or people owning guns? Given the context in which this amendment was written, I would offer the opinion that it's fundamental meaning is of the security of a free state and thus, it is speaking primarily of a militia (National Guard) rather than the rights of individuals to own guns. This does not mean that individuals MAY NOT own guns, only that the thrust of the amendment is in terms of a militia. Furthermore, ownership of guns is a specific topic, a tack hardly ever taken in the Constitution. That document speaks in generalities: freedom of worship (it does not say freedom to be Methodist, or Presbyterian, or Jewish, or athiest for these are specifics; get my point?). Specifics are left up to the various legislatures (federal, state, municipal), and are not generally countenanced in the Constitution (some exceptions: term limits of the executive, etc.)

I then would interpret this amendment as meaning that the federal government may not prohibit the states from maintaining their own militias (who are, in fact, the people), but that it says absolutely nothing about individual gun ownership.

Again in the language of 18th century diplomacy, the heralded opening of the Declaration of Independence begins "We the People...". This is not a reference to any specific person, nor to any group of people from a specific region but rather refers to the corporation of American citizens - the body politc. So too, in my estimation, is the use of the word "people" in the second amendment referring to the corporation of citizens of a state, not to individual persons.

Answer 2

Toward a Functional Framework for Interpreting
the Second Amendment[+]
By Scott Bursor

The 103d Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act[1] and the ban on "assault" weapons,[2] two of the most controversial gun control measures in American history. President Clinton, who signed those measures into law, later assured the overwhelming majority of the American people who believe that they have a constitutional right to own firearms[3] that "[t]he Members of Congress who voted for that bill and I would never do anything to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms to hunt and to engage in other appropriate sporting activities."[4]

The Second Amendment provides that "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."[5] And though this provision of the Bill of Rights has been avoided by the Supreme Court,[6] ignored by the legal academy,[7] and dismissed by even the most fervent defenders of civil (p.1126)liberties[8] for several decades, the trend toward more restrictive regulation of firearms is likely to generate a renewed interest in this "Lost Amendment."[9]

Some outspoken supporters of more restrictive gun control have urged that the Amendment be repealed.[10] Others have taken a less forthright tack by arguing that despite the apparent clarity of its language ("right of the people"), the Second Amendment was never meant to guarantee an individual right to own arms. Rather, they argue, it was designed solely to allow the states to continue to maintain their militia units (or, in modern terms, the National Guard) free from federal interference. Thus the Amendment presents no obstacle to even the total prohibition of private firearm ownership. This notion has been referred to as the "states' right" theory.

Answer 3

The right to keep and bear arms depends on your being a member of a well-regulated militia, not just a civilian. This amendment was created by a revolutionary government in revolutionary times to protect the new country from counter-revolutions. It has, however, been interpreted as holding that anyone has the right to own and carry arms. One argument is that by so doing, we are able to protect ourselves in case some external force invades the US and seeks to overthrow the government. But seeing as there are about 200 million guns in private hands and they were absolutely of no use in preventing the Bush overthrow of Constitutional government, that argument goes out the window.

This so-called right is probably the worst idea in the Constitution. America is one of the worlds most violent countries, as a result, ranking right up there with Haiti and Iraq. Gun ownership should be eliminated and allowed only in rare circumstances. Any gun crime should result in the immediate execution of the perpetrator.

Answer 4

I don't see anything to interpret. I take the second amendment literally, the way it was meant to be in order to preserve a free country. Disarming the public is the first step towards tyranny.
If this government would enforce the existing gun laws, there wouldn't be so many unnecessary deaths in this country.


To TJinLB: Dont know where you live but I live in Indiana. You cannot purchase any firearm at a gunshow without a gun permit. Problem solved.

Answer 5

I'm a law-abiding, tax-paying United States citizen. I'm a mature, responsible adult and I know what will happen to me if I abuse the privilege to own a gun. So give me a chance and don't make it nearly impossible to own a handgun! Second amendment CLEARLY says I should be able to "keep and bear" any kind of arms I want.

Answer 6

A State Army, or National Guard force..the idea that civilians should carry weapons is stupid, it just escalates crime and danger. Leave the guns to the trained professionals

TO TINJLB
I live in the UK, and our police force and civilian population aren't armed. We have our problems with race but we have never had to bear arms. Our Democracy means we dont allow the need to throw out a dictator. If only Americans would realise the Police force and the Goverment and ALL accountable

Answer 7

Being the Bill of Rights are "individual" rights it says to me the individuals right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Answer 8

That it is within the law for private citizens to own firearms. That is is lawful to have a militia for regional security.

Answer 9

My interpretation: "Since we need people who can handle a weapon to defend ourselves, the government can't keep the people from having weapons." Of course, there are always extenuating circumstances. Criminals and such forfeit their right to have weapons because they are at a higher risk of using them in an antisocial way.

Answer 10

i am trying to figure out my country's constitution so i am a bad person to ask for