“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.”
Thus reads the complete second amendment to the US Constitution. A lot of Americans would not recognize the first 13 words because the National Rifle Association has flagged the last 14 words as though it was the entire amendment. Yet, there isn’t a period between the first 13 words and the last 14 words, it is one complete sentence a mere 27 words in length.
What jumps out is the third word “regulated.” For as long as I have been paying attention to the “gun issue” the NRA has claimed that the government does not have the right to “regulate” arms. That seems to be a problem because the word appears early in the amendment.
George Mason, who participated in the writing of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, as well as the other writers of the Bill of Rights were forward thinking people. They didn’t write out these 27 words thinking that the first 13 had no value. To me, and many others, the inclusion of the first 13 words create the required balance of rights and responsibilities. Since the Virginia Declaration is the basis lets look at article thirteen which is the basis of our second amendment:
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
As an opening, the first words tell the reader that there is a need for a citizen militia. The founders did not like the idea of having a standing army because, bored groups of soldiers was not a safe organization to have around. They also firmly believed in the control of the military by civilian authority.
At the time of the writing of The Constitution, everyone pretty well knew the Virginia Declaration and understood intent. A regulated, trained, citizenry made for a safe and free state. Note: nowhere does it support the idea of either “self protection” or “home protection.” Strange that the reason given by most supporters of the NRA is their right to bear arms for self/home protection - now, who is making hash of The Constitution?
I think that the current efforts to control the weapons themselves are misguided. We have the entire second amendment, and the supporting document of the Virginia Declaration to guide us. We should focus on controlling the gun owner, not the gun.
We do not allow our police, or our military to hand out weapons to their members unless they are trained in both the use and the related laws regarding the weapons they are going to be issued. And, from my personal experience in the military, you don’t just simply draw a weapon unless you can prove that you have been trained. Yet, we have gun shops that sell any weapon to anyone with a license and/or identification (depending on the state) any weapon that they can afford.
So, what should we do? First of all go after our states to regain control of the currently unregulated militia. Setup training programs for weapons owners and those who want to bear arms. Also, have regular training sessions and qualification procedures. Now, before you scream about the cost, the states can ask the local NRA chapters to assume this basic task. The next step is to implement “type licensing.”
The “type license” would restrict the weapons that a person is allowed to bear. It would follow training. Therefore, it would be technically possible to own weapons that we are attempting to ban. However, it would also assure that the owner of the weapon would be answerable to the militia commanders and those commanders answerable to the state government and the state government answerable to the electorate. So, the hunter gets the hunting weapon and is well trained by the militia leadership.
Possessing a weapon for which you are not licensed would be a crime. Using a weapon to commit a crime would be punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice where rules of evidence and procedure are different from the civilian courts.
Will criminals still have weapons? Yes, but they already do and our civil courts aren’t doing a great job with weapons crimes. We also have to remember that the right to bear arms is for the defense of the state, not self/home defense.
For me, the weapons issue is one of implementing the complete second amendment, not just the last 14 words of the amendment and then trying to control the hardware. The NRA has said for years “guns don’t kill people, people kill people…” They are right, so, regulate the people and the weapons will take care of themselves.