Democrats will try again to block terrorism suspects from buying guns

[happyslug]

29. The actual constitution made the miltia federal.

Under the US Constitution the Militia is to be organised by Congress. In the radification process, the biggest attack on the then proposed Constitution was what would happen if Congress failed to organise the Militia. The defense was the Militia existed independent of any government for it was the people acting together and thus could never be abolished. This was NOT good enough for most people of the US so it was understood (via state ratification conventions) that a Bill of Rights wound be passed with the first Congress and the issue of the militia would be addressed.

Given that background the Bill of Rights were passed. The Second Amendment clearly was to address the issue of a Congressional failure to organise the Militia or any part of the Militia. This purpose is clear and no one disputes it.

The debate is does the Second reserves to the states the right to organise the militia (when the Federal Government does not) within that state's borders OR is the right to to bear arms reserves the right to form up the Militia to the people themselves Independent of the States and the Federal Government? You can NOT form up the Militia without weapons, thus access to weapons by whoever can form the Militia was clearly the intent of the Second Amendment.

Notice the Second Amendment does NOT prevent or interferes with how the Federal Government forms up the Militia (nor requires the Federal Government to do so). The Second Amendment is clearly a reserve of power clause to either the States or the people themselves.

As to the recent Supreme Court rulings, Scalia actually avoids discussing the Militia in his opinion but instead concentrated on the right to self defense, a topic not even mentioned either in the Second Amendment itself nor on the debates on ratification of the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Scalia wanted to say it was unconstitutional for states to forbid ownership of pistols, but by doing so Scalia left open the right to ban assault weapons. I think that is wrong, under the clear language of the Second Amendment, pistols can be banned for they are at best marginal militia weapons for it is the militia the Second Amendment was to protect not the right to self defense.

Just a comment why the Second Amendment exists, it is NOT to protect the right of the Federal Government to have an army but to protect the Militia.

By the way the US Constitution does BAN States from having "TROOPS" without Congressional permission, but permit the States to have militia. Thus the states do NOT have the inherent right to form any army, that right is reserved to the Federal Government alone.