4

second amendment

"A well regulated Militia" being the first part of the Amendment appears to steer the legislation towards militia/national guard - especially with "being necessary to the security of a free state" being right after it.

However, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" steers the legislation towards individual rights of citizens to own/operate Arms. But since there is a ',' (comma) rather than a ';' (semi-colon) it is a little confusing to me that it should be in conjunction with the aforementioned statement rather than a separate statement in and of itself.

So, does the 2nd Amendment actually give the individual people of the United States, the right to bear Arms, or does it merely give the States within the Union the right for Armed people to make up a militia?

Ruut
  • 2,132
  • 15
  • 27
  • VTC as opinion-based (obviously) – Ernest Friedman-Hill Oct 31 '15 at 13:52
  • 1
    You might ask this on [law.se] but it's off topic here. – Sklivvz Oct 31 '15 at 16:37
  • 8
    This is opinion-based, but in the end it's only the Supreme Court's opinion that matters, and they decided that the second amendment is an individual right in 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller). – Mark Oct 31 '15 at 18:52
  • 1
    @Mark That's what I'm talking about. Too bad that's a comment and not an answer. – Ruut Nov 01 '15 at 00:41
  • 1
    @Ruut - if you intended to find out the legal answer and not the opinion, I would recommend editing the question to clarify that explicitly. – user5341 Nov 02 '15 at 16:28
  • @Sklivvz Could you migrate this question to 'Law?' – Ruut Nov 02 '15 at 22:45
  • @user5341 Well, I didn't ask for opinion... – Ruut Nov 09 '15 at 10:07
  • Originally the intention was to make it illegal for the federal government to disarm the (then equivalent of the) national guard. Over time the interpretation has changed to be an individual right. – liftarn Sep 08 '17 at 06:39

0 Answers0