| Revision as of 09:30, 14 March 2002 view sourceAxelBoldt (talk | contribs)Administrators44,499 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:45, 14 March 2002 view source 209.20.229.37 (talk) * fix typo (note --> not)Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| Some interpreters, notably ] advocates, interpret "well regulated militia" as a government-led body. On this grounds, these interpreters assert that the Second Amendment does '''not''' give private citizens the right to bear arms. They see bearing arms as a privilege granted to private citizens at the discretion of government. | Some interpreters, notably ] advocates, interpret "well regulated militia" as a government-led body. On this grounds, these interpreters assert that the Second Amendment does '''not''' give private citizens the right to bear arms. They see bearing arms as a privilege granted to private citizens at the discretion of government. | ||
| Other interpreters maintain that the term "militia" in the Colonial Era referred to the armed citizenry as a whole (as distinct from a goverment-led body such as a standing army). On this grounds, these interpreters assert that the Second Amendment '''does''' give citizens the right to bear arms whether the government agrees or |
Other interpreters maintain that the term "militia" in the Colonial Era referred to the armed citizenry as a whole (as distinct from a goverment-led body such as a standing army). On this grounds, these interpreters assert that the Second Amendment '''does''' give citizens the right to bear arms whether the government agrees or not. These interpreters generally agree, however, that certain unqualified people such as the certifiably insane or convicted violent felons should not be permitted arms. The degree of opposition to licensing of gun owners, comparable, say, to driver's licenses, varies among these interpreters. | ||
| Many localities have laws against private citizen's bearing of guns; the ] has never struck down such a law. It is therefore likely that the Supreme Court does not agree with the second interpretation given above. | Many localities have laws against private citizen's bearing of guns; the ] has never struck down such a law. It is therefore likely that the Supreme Court does not agree with the second interpretation given above. | ||
Revision as of 09:45, 14 March 2002
Second Amendment
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.
- See also : United States Constitution
Interpretations
Some interpreters, notably gun control advocates, interpret "well regulated militia" as a government-led body. On this grounds, these interpreters assert that the Second Amendment does not give private citizens the right to bear arms. They see bearing arms as a privilege granted to private citizens at the discretion of government.
Other interpreters maintain that the term "militia" in the Colonial Era referred to the armed citizenry as a whole (as distinct from a goverment-led body such as a standing army). On this grounds, these interpreters assert that the Second Amendment does give citizens the right to bear arms whether the government agrees or not. These interpreters generally agree, however, that certain unqualified people such as the certifiably insane or convicted violent felons should not be permitted arms. The degree of opposition to licensing of gun owners, comparable, say, to driver's licenses, varies among these interpreters.
Many localities have laws against private citizen's bearing of guns; the United States Supreme Court has never struck down such a law. It is therefore likely that the Supreme Court does not agree with the second interpretation given above.
External Links:
- Conservative Handbook Quotes some founding fathers.