"If that is how I read the Second Amendment, then everyone who do not meet the definition of a "well regulated Militia" do not have the right to bear arms, and thus cannot legally own or use a gun. "
I don't agree. For one thing, the structure of the sentence is such that it creates a rationale for prohibiting infringement, not a sole and exclusive rationale. The amendment doesn't preclude other rationales, it simply doesn't state any of them. Unless one subscribes to the "what is not explicitly permitted is prohibited" model of law and government, the RKBA would remain available to all "the people."
More importantly, the sentence ascribes the RKBA to a set (the people) that contains the subset (militia) mentioned in the stated rationale. It establishes as antecedent that the RKBA applies to the larger set from which the subset is then derived. Had the intent been to restrict toe RKBA to the subset, the language of the amendment would have to be different (something along the lines of "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read