Do "The People" really have the right to "bear arms" according to the Constitution?

Question

Or is it only the "Militia" who has that absolute right?

The 2nd Amendment says:
"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."

P.S.
Just for my friend "The Thing" below, I have posted the 1st amendment under the question "Can Congress control any aspect of Religious Practices."

Answer 1

Currently, five of the federal appellate circuits have interpreted the right to be collective -- meaning, state approve militias -- while two (the 5th and DC) have interpreted it to be an individual right held by private citizens. The rest have not addressed that issue.

But more important than the collective vs. individual rights argument is the fact that the 2nd Amendment (like the 7th) was never incorporated via the 14th to apply against the states -- meaning that at present, that amendment only limits FEDERAL gun control laws, not state regulation.

But -- the Supreme Court is hearing arguments relating to these interpretations this term -- so the answer may be different after that case is decided.

Answer 2

Yes, "the people" do have the right to keep and bear arms. The reason for this is that in order to form an armed malitia, the people who would be part of that militia must have arms to bring into the fight.

You must read the amendment in light of history. When it was written, we had just fought a war using malitias made up of volunteers who mostly had to bring thier own weapons. The newly formed government had few other options.

Now, remembering the purpose of the militia was to OVERTHROW an oppressive government. Where else would the populace get thier weapons to accomplish that goal even in modern times if they didn't have the right to keep and bear arms?

Answer 3

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

Up until 1928 it was Federal law for every able-bodied man to have a pack, a rifle in military caliber, and 120 rounds of ammunition ready to go at a moments notice.

Answer 4

Yes it is "the people" because otherwise you would have someone saying that only members of some sort of "militia"would have that right and then that they had to be well regulated and then you have made it back to the National Guard which is fine but defeats the purpose of keeping weapons in the hands of the average man to use to keep his "state"secure.

Answer 5

Much of the Constitution is based on keeping the government from taking over the people. The government is supposed to be by the people and for the people. In that sense, everybody is a militia. If your government goes bad, they won't supply the militia, being the people who would want to restore our rights, with guns. Therefore, we should be allowed to keep them.

Answer 6

The distinction being made in the amendment is between politically/federal controlled units and locally controlled and staffed militias. So as an individual you have the absolute right to start, join and run a local military unit with your neighbour's, there by legally owning assault rifles and heavy weapons.

Answer 7

Well, it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" so it seems pretty clear to me...by the way, what does the First Amendment say about religion? I can't find this whole "wall of separation" thingy...

And yes, libs, I know about Thomas Jefferson's letter, which is not in the Constitution last time I checked.

Answer 8

Tragically the whole question of "bearing arms", which phrase originally referred to people being in an armed service rather than individually carrying arms, has been ballsed up from the very beginning. Notice that "arms" is in plural, in reference to a collective of individuals carrying weapons, and this was always the original meaning of the phrase.

Americans eager for the legal right to bear arms have over the years have been able to push the Court further and further towards interpreting the 2nd amendment as an individual right that it was never meant to be.

The right to individual "self-defense" with firearms has to be the stupidist concept ever unleashed on a civil society. It is an admission that people either (a) don't trust their police or (b) are not willing to fund their police.

Given this, the present level of firearms violence in the United States was entirely predictable, in that every drug dealer, mobster and hoodlum can claim the right of carrying a heater for the purpose of "self-defense".

Instead of pushing for a useless right fraught with so much potential for harm, the good citizens of this country should have been pushing for the proper funding, operational and responsibility for a trusted and effective police force to provide proper protection for the ordinary citizen, rather than the underfunded hollow shell of a police force that exists in most urban centers now.
-

Answer 9

let me ask you this
if a person doesn't already have guns on the open market how is a militia of the people gonna get guns in order to keep a free state?
it would kind of be impossible because the state would just make guns unavailable if they controled them.

Answer 10

There were four supreme court rulings that said that it has to do with a states right to a militia. If you take those words literally, then it is mandated by the 2nd amendment to have gun control.