“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.”
Do the rights to bear arms remain if there is an existing “well regulated militia”? Is a “well regulated militia” to be formed by those who have the right to bear arms? Hasn’t Congress decided that the National Guard is the militia? Hasn’t the security of the United States been repeatedly and successfully defended by the U.S. armed forces? Can the security of a free state, or more importantly its citizens, be ensured by the people’s right to bear arms, or can it also be threatened, compromised even violated because of that right?
Shouldn’t we be more concerned about how this amendment’s interpretation has changed our society for the worse? How it has led to increased violence, fears of public exposure, changed schools settings from places of safe learning to increasingly militarized fortresses.
This amendment has been addressed by the Supreme Court in 1876, 1886, 1939 and 2008, when the current ruling passed by a 5-4 decision. I think it time for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue.
Frank Meneghini
Peterborough