Reinterpret the Second

For those who like to get excited about gun rights, I have a perspective on the Second Amendment which may be worth considering: First, I believe it is important to be aware of the historical circumstances during the time when the Constitution was being written. Second, it is important to recognize the fact that the courts, including the Supreme Court, have interpreted the meaning of the document at various times during our history. These interpretations have sometimes been revised or reinterpreted.

In a speech given at the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin said, “Having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change my opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”

I would suggest that the Second Amendment has been poorly interpreted by the courts over time, and that our present condition requires a new approach.

The Second Amendment is one of few words: “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.”

In the arguments about gun rights, there is seldom any reference to a Militia, let alone a “well regulated” one. In historical times, arms used by the Militia were stored in an armory. The Militia’s primary purpose was to defend the new nation against the British.

The Second Amendment goes on to assert that it is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” “People” is a collective noun. The Second Amendment nowhere says anything about an “individual” right to gun ownership. I suggest, therefore, that this is a matter subject to interpretation and discussion by concerned parties and the courts, and that “better information and fuller consideration” should guide us in our present condition.

Miguel Melbin

Spokane