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.
Now it's not up to me to interpret this amendment (that's for the Supreme Court, per our Constitution). But could the following be a reasonable interpretation?
The right of people to keep and bear arms for the stated purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed, being necessary to the security of a free state.
With this interpretation a person that is not capable of being part of a well regulated Militia has no reason to own or use a gun. That obviously includes criminals, children, the blind, and anyone that is not trained to use a gun safely. Hence the obvious licensing and registration to prevent such people from owning a gun.
I would have to think on it more, but if it were up to me (and really, we can all be thankful that it's not!) this would be the interpretation that makes most sense.
Out of curiosity, how do you interpret the 2nd Amendment?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment