"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."
In the house and senate version "Militia" was capitalized, and in the version of the document the states signed "States" is capitalized.
IMO, if you look at the literal meaning of the document, it is clear that the 2nd amendment is all about State's rights, and the State's ability to defend itself against the federal government. Since I think that was the obvious reason "States" was capitalized, when it was sent to the states, I think it's absolutely moronic to think the framers would have had a problem with states exercising the rights to regulate firearms within their own boundaries. There is no polite way to put it. Knowing what we know about the framer's and their intent to give the states great freedom, there really is no other construction. I think the Feds have a problem regulating firearms- but not the states.
The construction of the sentence paralleling the ablative absolute from the Latin, in which the framers were steeped, convinces me that the beginning clause is meant to indicate the circumstances in which we should consider the phrase- ie- in terms of well regulated (regulated- trained- not people acting on their own willy nilly) MILITIAS- with regard to the states. Other constructions are interesting, some are ridiculous, but very few of the constructions people today want to put on the 2nd amendment have anything to do with what the framer's intended. Which ought to matter to folks who claim to be interested in strict construction- but that always flies out the window when that type of analysis won't get you where you want. |
