If The second amendment were written like this, we wouldnt have this problem

[A HERETIC I AM]

Before I get into the text I propose, I want to say that I am by no means a constitutional scholar, in fact I am a truck driver by trade. But I have read the constitution and all of the amendments a number of times and I am a firm believer in context as well as keeping in mind that the circumstances In which the Constitution was written.

The very first words of the very first amendment deal with religion and its appropriate place in government (none) and restrictions on the government to involve itself there in.

The fact that the second amendment deals with guns before even the protection of personal property or the right to due process or a jury trial are mentioned has always interested me.

The third amendment, being the least litigated in the Supreme Court history, is also important as it relates to the context of the day and times with which the first 10 amendments were written. It was a common place circumstance in late 1700s New England where British soldiers could simply walk into your house and say this is ours now or the captain lives here now or whatever and force you out. But that sort of situation hasn’t occurred to American citizens since the Civil War where the union army did that very thing to many southern households.

Having said that, consider how different our nations perspective on gun ownership would be if the second amendment, written in the late 1700s appeared as follows;

A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, shall be populated by volunteer members of the citizenry of the several states. Volunteers of such a militia shall be required to attend regular muster, firearms training and drill instruction led by a duly appointed and competent military representative to be designated by Congress. Modern firearms, being the most effective way of defending life, limb, and property shall be made readily available to members of the militia And therefore the right to bear such fire arms under appropriate supervision shall not be infringed. Ancillary ammunition for such fire arms shall be retained in a local armory under the supervision of the aforementioned duly appointed competent military representative.

The word “own” or “owner” or “ownership” does not appear in the text of the Second Amendment as currently adopted nor does it appear in the text I provided above. In fact the word own or ownership actually appears relatively infrequently in the first 10 amendments to the constitution. It has been argued that the unfettered right to own guns and keep them in your home is a bastardization of the intent of the original wording of the Second Amendment.

Edit to add, as my dad used to say, using an ancient expression;

“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride”


Flame away

[world wide wally]

1. I like it

Better than the existing 2A

[A HERETIC I AM]

2. Thanks

[Snackshack]

3. A well regulated militia

That qualifier makes clear that the founders understood the dangers of a Musket and that regulation of it was needed...for a Musket no less. Certainly had they foreseen what technology would transform the Musket into and the creation of Law Enforcement Agency’s as well as a standing Military. The 2nd Amendment would be vastly different if it existed at all.

[A HERETIC I AM]

4. Ive read numerous articles over the years regarding this subject

And it was clear most of the framers did not like the idea of a permanent standing army

Also the idea of “law enforcement” which I assume you meant police forces, were also held in disdain, and the advent of the so-called modern police force didn’t happen until the late 1800’s.

Google “the violent beginnings of American police departments”

You’ll find some interesting reading

[Igel]

5. It's written in a very late 20th/early 21st century way.

Where it's granting a limited right and setting up a kind of organization.

That utterly missing the intent of the bill of rights, which was merely there to point out that these particular rights existed apart from the Constitution and the Constitution was there to make sure they were upheld--while taking pains to point out that these are not the sum total of such rights, just a limited selection of some important ones.

It's more Russian or Roman law than English common law, in other words, in which the state grants rights instead of free citizens granting the state a limited ability to limit their rights.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Good Reply

I completely agree that the OP proposal reads like the government granting a right, as opposed to the intent which was to prohibit the government from suborning rights that existed inherently.