|
In response to
"In the sense of it being a product of its time*, sure, but one could argue that the particular use of the phrase “well-regulated militia” was -- (edited)"
by
znufrii
|
I default to Federalist Paper #29. And Justice Stevens' dissent in DC v. Heller. -- (edited)
|
I think Hamilton did a pretty good job of capturing the conventional wisdom of what "well-regulated milita" meant at the time. But then again, he advocated against a standing army in favor of state-based militia (i.e., National Guard units). However, he was an avowed abolitionist, so I doubt he saw the militia as something only to put down rebellious slaves.
I think Justice Stevens (or really, the clerks in his office) did a good job of briefly summarizing the Constitutional Convention's consideration of the Second Amendment:
"The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."
Not to say that there weren't delegates to the Constitutional Convention advocating for well-regulated militias on the basis of racist arguments (e.g., necessary to put down slave rebellions), there obviously were. Just as there were delegates advocating the Second Amendment to meant that firearms ownership should be a personal right, not merely a right of service in the militia.
I don't think SCOTUS reached the right decision in Heller because the majority relied on a few bits of recorded history from the time to support their decision that owning a firearm is a personal right. I think it's a stretch to claim common understand of "The Founders" or "The Framers" based on a few vocal delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
I also think it's a stretch to say the entire Constitutional Convention -- all delegates from all Colonies -- adopted the Second Amendment out of the same racist advocacy based on the words of a few vocal delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
|
Responses:
|