What Does The Right To \'Bear Arms\' Really Mean? The Second Amendment Allows Mi
ID: 668575 • Letter: W
Question
What Does The Right To 'Bear Arms' Really Mean? The Second Amendment Allows Militias To Have Guns - Not You
By JOSHUA HORWITZ
POSTED: December 20, 1991
Gun violence has reached crisis proportions throughout the United States. Once a problem thought to be confined to large urban centers, gun violence now has spread to smaller, historically safer cities, such as Milwaukee, Wis., and Charlotte, N.C., both of which will set firearms fatality records in 1991. Even small towns in rural America are not immune from this violence, as the recent massacre of 23 people by a crazed gunman in Killeen, Texas, has horribly demonstrated. This year, firearms violence is expected to account for 33,000 deaths and more than 250,000 injuries.
It is clear that a major contributing factor to the violence is the abundance and easy availability of handguns and assault weapons. While most of us abhor this violence and want to do something about the problem, some may be reluctant to advocate tough gun control laws because they misunderstand and misinterpret the Second Amendment.
This misinterpretation has been fostered by the firearms lobby, which often quotes only the second clause of the Second Amendment, seemingly forgetting that the first clause even exists. Indeed, the second clause is the only part of the amendment inscribed on the National Rifle Association's headquarters building in Washington.
The Second Amendment in its entirety states: "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." This amendment was adopted to assure the states that they would have the right to maintain their own militias to protect against federal and foreign encroachment.
There is no substantial historical evidence for the claim that the amendment was intended to guarantee an individual the right to have arms for any purpose other than participation in a state-regulated militia. In fact, there was not even a mention of an individual right to bear arms for hunting or other non-militia purposes. Moreover, what is clear is that in contemporary America the National Guard is the militia.
Interestingly, the federal judiciary has been remarkably consistent in
finding that the Second Amendment protects a state's right to keep a well- organized militia, rather than an individual's right to bear arms. The one modern Supreme Court case concerning the Second Amendment, United States v. Miller, found that a regulation outlawing sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment. Recently, the high court vindicated this view by refusing to hear a Second Amendment challenge to the federal ban on machine guns brought by the NRA.
Following the lead of the Supreme Court, lower federal courts have never overturned a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds and have been uniform in holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, deciding that the National Firearms Act did not violate the Second Amendment, held that "it is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right" (United States v. Warin). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Quilici v. Morton Grove, found that the Second Amendment did not bar the city of Morton Grove, Ill., from banning handguns. The court said: ''Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment."
Legal scholars have also emphasized this interpretation. Retired Chief Justice Warren E. Burger has stated that "the need for a state militia was the predicate of the 'right' guaranteed." Former dean of the Harvard Law School, Erwin Griswold, who was also solicitor general in the Nixon administration, wrote in the Washington Post: "Indeed, that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to strong gun laws is perhaps the most well-settled proposition in American constitutional law."
Clearly, a proper interpretation of the Second Amendment, free from the gun lobby's rhetoric, protects the state-federal relationship and does not stand in the way of comprehensive gun-control laws. The framers of the Constitution would be shocked to see the Second Amendment being used as a shield to justify the daily roster of shootings in this country. We must realize that the only true barrier to gun-control laws and, hence, an eventual reduction of the level of violence, is the gun lobby and the financial interests it seeks to protect, not the Second Amendment.
http://articles.philly.com/1991-12-20/news/25811671_1_second-amendment-gun-violence-militia
Question:
(1) Please, describes an issue or problem that could be addressed with several types of writing. Keep it fairly short, and preferably, something that deals with a local issue that you know something about already. (Remember the characteristics of technical writing? You need to think in these terms). If you wish, you may describe a real problem or issue that is happening at your workplace or school. Include your description in place of the article.
(2) Identify three (3) possible documents (see the examples in chapter 1 for some kinds of technical documents…) that could be generated to address the problem. (For example, a flyer advertising for volunteers in the company to help a fellow worker rebuild a house damaged in a tornado!) Tell what purpose the document will serve and who the audience will be…and what aspect of the issue or problem it will address.
(3) Assume a role and create a scenario. For example, you are the owner of the company that encourages its employees to volunteer in the community and you see the opportunity to help those whose homes were damaged by recent storms…
(4) In your new role, write one example of the documents you identified. For example, create the flyer that you will distribute to your employees…or the email…or even a letter to the people who lost the home.
Explanation / Answer
It is clear that a major contributing factor to the violence is the abundance and easy availability of handguns and assault weapons. While most of us abhor this violence and want to do something about the problem, some may be reluctant to advocate tough gun control laws because they misunderstand and misinterpret the Second Amendment.
This misinterpretation has been fostered by the firearms lobby, which often quotes only the second clause of the Second Amendment, seemingly forgetting that the first clause even exists. Indeed, the second clause is the only part of the amendment inscribed on the National Rifle Association's headquarters building in Washington.
The Second Amendment in its entirety states: "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." This amendment was adopted to assure the states that they would have the right to maintain their own militias to protect against federal and foreign encroachment.
There is no substantial historical evidence for the claim that the amendment was intended to guarantee an individual the right to have arms for any purpose other than participation in a state-regulated militia. In fact, there was not even a mention of an individual right to bear arms for hunting or other non-militia purposes. Moreover, what is clear is that in contemporary America the National Guard is the militia.
Interestingly, the federal judiciary has been remarkably consistent in
finding that the Second Amendment protects a state's right to keep a well- organized militia, rather than an individual's right to bear arms. The one modern Supreme Court case concerning the Second Amendment, United States v. Miller, found that a regulation outlawing sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment. Recently, the high court vindicated this view by refusing to hear a Second Amendment challenge to the federal ban on machine guns brought by the NRA.
Following the lead of the Supreme Court, lower federal courts have never overturned a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds and have been uniform in holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, deciding that the National Firearms Act did not violate the Second Amendment, held that "it is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right" (United States v. Warin). The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Quilici v. Morton Grove, found that the Second Amendment did not bar the city of Morton Grove, Ill., from banning handguns. The court said: ''Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment."
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.