My Second Amendment "Constitutional originalist" version, with explanation.

[guillaumeb]

Informed voters know that, in order to arrive at his interpretation of the real meaning of the Second Amendment, Antonin Scalia, the self-described Constitutional originalist who served on the SCOTUS, decided to literally dismiss half of the actual wording of the Amendment as, in his words, “merely prefatory”.

In that spirit, I have decided to turn my own Constitutional originalist lens on the Amendment, and explain what the founders really intended. Mine has the added attraction of being in line with their actual thinking, and their actions in forming the government and additional Agencies.

First, the unredacted Amendment 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.”

First, it is obvious that the first 2 clauses, “A well-regulated militia”, are the primary clauses. All of the rest of the Amendment explains those clauses. So, following the example of Antonin Scalia, I decided to dismiss the next two clauses as being merely referential to the primary clause, and not necessary in any interpretation of the Amendment.

Given that the founders refused to establish a standing army, instead stating that the new nation would rely on an organized militia for security and protection, the Amendment should read:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, will forthwith be established.


This version is in keeping with the intent of the founders, and eliminates any idea that everyone who feels the “need” for a weapon should have access to one.

[The Magistrate]

1. A Point To Bear In Mind, Sir

A militia does require weapons, and all the way back to feudal levies militiamen were expected to provide their own equipment. This might be by private possession, or by community ownership, served out to militia answering the call.

A point that always interests me is 'bear arms' rather than 'possess arms'. The usage 'bear arms' meant at the time, and for many years after, employment of arms in a military role. A man who had hunted all his life with a rifle but never served in the militia or in regular forces would not ever have 'borne arms' in the parlance of the day. The men writing that document were fairly careful in their choice of words, and if they meant simply the right of the people to possess arms one suspects that is what they would have written, rather than what they did write, the right of the people to bear arms, which places the matter inescapably in the context of military, not civil usage.

[guillaumeb]

2. Thank you for the excellent addition.

But Scalia had an agenda. He was determined to find justification for individuals to walk around with weapons, and he was willing to engage in tortured logic in that endeavor.

His argument would have failed in a debate class, but he was speaking to a certain minority of the population.

[Atticus]

3. Thank you for that context. Unfortunately, we are in a "words mean whatever Trump last

said they mean" era and he has the intellect of a house plant.

[guillaumeb]

4. The Covid epidemic combined with the stupidity plague,

and we are suffering.