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.
Those are the words of the second amendment to the United States Constitution. This week the Supreme Court will hear a case that will determine exactly what those words mean.
For years the city of Washington, D.C., had a ban on the possession of handguns. But a few months ago, a court threw out that ban, saying it violated the second amendment right to bear arms. The city has appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case this week.
The crux of the matter is exactly who has the right "to bear arms". Is it the individual, or an organized state militia? Different parts of the country have defined the right in different ways. The city of Washington believes it is a right reserved for a militia. Here in Texas it is generally considered to be a right of the individual.
I am no lover of guns, and in fact, I've never even owned a gun. However, the way I read the amendment, it is an individual right. It lists the militia as a reason the right of "the people" must be protected. The "people" are individuals -- you and me.
It should be interesting to see what the opinion of the Supreme Court is. With the court almost evenly split between liberals and conservatives, it could go either way. In fact, I'm not even sure this is a liberal/conservative issue. There are many liberals, including myself, who believe it is an individual right.
Thank you.
ReplyDelete