Skip to main content

View Diary: On Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism v. A Living Constitution? (286 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The test itself is what is important (none)
    The answer exists in the question itself.  By asking whether owning a shotgun had a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", it becomes clear that the question regards the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.  This stated test (re)defines the precedent that previously existed - firearms may be regulated unless that regulation interferes with the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.  Thus, the 'right to bear arms' exists only so far as it relates to the maintaining a well regulated militia.

    The question becomes, does existance of the NG - who are provided weapons - mean that no regulation against private ownership of firearms would interfere with a well-regulated militia.  What does "well-regulated militia" mean?  The founders vision of a well regulated militia (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15-16: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;| Art II Section 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States...) seems to match that of what we now call the National Guard, that is civilians who train in their spare time and who can be called to service by their Governor or by the President.

    •  Your argument (none)
      has as its main consequence convincing millions of Americans who might otherwise vote for the Democratic Party that Democrats are dangerous and cannot be trusted with the instruments of government.

      There are millions of Americans who might agree that it is the Democratic Party that is the Party of more restrained government, that it is the Democratic Party that will stay out of their bedroom, and that it is the Democratic Party that is better for the stock markets, but they turn around and see that the Democratic Party only supports parts of the Bill of Rights, and therefore will not vote Democratic.

      The objective may be stated in the first part of teh Amendment, but the means, name the rights of the people, the same people as mentioned in the First Amendment, as not to be infringed.

      To which I would add that, even if there were no second amendment at all, so there were no question that the regulation of arms ownership were purely a matter of law, that in my opinion the people who want to restrict arms ownership are people that millions of Americans, who might elsewise be open to the Democratic message, would deservedly never consider supporting.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site