The meaning of the Second Amendment (One Perspective)

[hansberrym]

181. The problem is that the Heller dissent insisted on an rkba exclusively for

service in state organized militia.

Of course there is much evidence that the RKBA encompasses service in militia, state organized or not. And there is evidence that rkba encompasses self defense, also defense of home, also defense of community, of state and country.

What there is no evidence of is that the rkba was widely understood to mean exclusively the right to keep and bear arms in service of a state organized militia. That is a naked assertion of the Heller disenters.



Yes, Mr. Scott was no doubt referring to the fund paid into by those who refused to bear arms -if they could not be made to pay an equivalent, the fund would dry up and arms could not be purchased. Those who could not afford their own arms were to have arms supplied from these funds. Thus their right to keep arms would be defeated if the fund was not maintained. Apparently Mr. Scott sw the right to keep arms as a positive right Also there was certain equipment (i.e. moulds for making shot) that many people could not afford, but which was to be paid for frm the fund.

Why should a right to bear arms be no broader than the duty to bear arms? "Bear arms" meaning of course as the Heller majority found: to carry arms in preparation for confrontation. This can be done for one's own protection, the protection of one's home, or the protection of one's community either voluntarily, or in mandated service to the community. The duty to bear arms was for the protection of the community or state but it borders on the absurd to suggest that one could not defend one's self and home as well as the community, even though one was compelled only to protect the community.


Then there is the quote from Jame Wilson saying that the PA constitutional right to bear arms was a revival of the obligation to defend the kingdom and one's own person.