The U.S. Supreme Court held in the Heller decision (2008) that the Second Amendment to our Constitution safeguards a private right in owning firearms. “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” was determined to be a qualifying clause, and not the requirement for possession of firearms. A cursory overview of the Constitution provides a clear explanation.
Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress to organize, provide for training, and arm the militia, which was done by the Militia Act of 1792, subsequently amended. Logic would indicate that if Congress was empowered to arm the militia, why would James Madison propose an amendment to the Constitution merely restating a previously expressed power? Surely an individual right was contemplated and intended. The court held a similar view.
In an adversarial judicial system such as ours, there are always winners and losers; someone will always cry foul. But it goes both ways. James Ramsey (June 8) should research Supreme Court decisions from the 1930s, including the attempted court-packing shenanigans by the Democrats leading up to the Social Security Act decision of 1937.