My $0.02 on Gun Control - Part 2

Part 2: The 2nd Amendment

In my previous post I outlined how I went from an inconsiderate gun user to a gun control advocate to a gun owner advocate.

Now, a look at the 2nd 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.

What is a militia? According to the US Supreme Court, "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range." That definition is taken from Militia Act of 1792 which defines a militia as consisting of "every 'free able-bodied white male citizen' between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense ..."

From the Wikipedia article on 'militia' ...

In its original sense, militia meant "the state, quality, condition, or activity of being a fighter or warrior." It can be thought of as "combatant activity", "the fighter frame of mind", "the militant mode", "the soldierly status", or "the warrior way".

In this latter usage, a militia is a body of private persons who respond to an emergency threat to public safety, usually one that requires an armed response, but which can also include ordinary law enforcement or disaster responses. The act of bringing to bear arms contextually changes the status of the person, from peaceful citizen, to warrior citizen. The militia is the sum total of persons undergoing this change of state.

Persons have been said to engage in militia in response to a "call up" by any person aware of the threat requiring the response, and thence to be in "called up" status until the emergency is past. There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law.

I believe the definition can be altered to include any law-abiding citizen regardless of age, race, gender, etc.

So, the militia--as known by the founding fathers--is not the military. It is comprised of ordinary citizens who are required to arm themselves and "who respond to an emergency threat to public safety, usually one that requires an armed response..." Does this sound like CCW permit holders to you? There sure are a lot of similarities.

• States regulate who may hold CCW permits.
• The CCW permit issuance process is well regulated by statute.
• CCW permit holders are required to follow statutory laws most citizens never have to worry about.
• CCW permit holders are required to arm themselves.
• CCW permit holders may respond to threats to public safety. Though, they are by no means required to do so.

Granted, there is nothing in Federal or State law that makes a one-to-one militia equals CCW permit holders comparison. This is strictly my opinion but I feel I have made my argument clear. Armed citizens--particularly CCW permit holders--are a modern-day equivalent to a state's militia. If that is the case, then the US Constitution definitively grants the right to bear arms to these people.

"... shall not be infringed." That is a sticky point in the 2nd Amendment. There are valid reasons to infringe on a person's right to bear arms. Convicted criminals, the mentally insane, persons under the influence of alcohol or drugs, etc. should not have the right to possess a firearm. There are plenty of good reasons and case law to support this. However, law-abiding citizens should not have their right infringed upon.