D.C.’s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court
The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment’s meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.
I’ve always been fascinated by people’s various views on the second amendment, and in particular people’s views on the DC gun ban.
Art. II . 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.
Maybe my viewpoint was defined because as a child, and an avid reader of history, I understood the concept of militia before I learned of the Second Amendment. I have always understood the word militia to mean essentially every able-bodied person. So I’ve always understood it to be an individual right. It seems to me to be counter intuitive to read it otherwise.
Militia - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
2. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
I’ve heard the “it’s a group right” take on the subject a couple of times, but I’ve never understood that interpretation. The First and Fourth Amendments apply to individuals, so why wouldn’t the Second?
There’s also the “it’s a military right” viewpoint, but that one’s always sounded a little weak to me too. Why would the government define a “right” for itself to give it’s soldiers weapons? Governments don’t have rights, people have rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights in all other contexts was essentially to define what rights “people” had. This protected people, individual people, from the government. Why would the Second Amendment be different?
The case is complicated by the District’s secondary argument that the Second Amendment is not implicated by legislation that applies only to the District of Columbia. - washingtonpost.com
This is one of my favorite arguments, just for plain audacity. They essentially admit an individual right, but state that it doesn’t apply to the District of Columbia… City of New York, Chicago, whoever. So the “people” have a fundamental right, but the District, State, City, or County can take it away? How’s that work? If the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the citizens of DC, does the First Amendment? It’s my understanding that the US Constitution, and the Bill or Rights, applies to all citizens. I look forward to seeing these issues debated in the news, and in the courts.