Something I am unsure of about America

I have read this:
"The right to bear arms" is the right to possess and carry weapons, a concept rooted in English history and enshrined in the United States as the Second Amendment, which allows people to have arms for self-defense and other purposes, subject to regulations.

What are the regulations? I ask because if someone can just gun down a thirty one years old as they disagree with his rhetoric how are guns and the right to bear arms working? Surely the fact the Framers didn’t include it in the Original Constitution means they didn’t want people killing other people adhoc.

Here in Italy 🇮🇹 I am privileged to have a concealed weapon because of whom my father is. But it is PURELY for self defence, and the defence of my daughter who is still a minor.

I read somewhere too that the police in one town went on strike and everyone wore a gun and they say crime was almost non existent. When the Amendment was added was this historically the thought of the legislators because there were a spate of killings?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M

The key to the Second Amendment that seems to be mostly forgotten is that it refers to a "well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"; in other words an official military force to be called upon in times of emergency -- such as the National Guard -- and not giving guns to every nutjob who can carry one. But the gun lobby here in the US likes to ignore the whole militia thing.

Ximenajacoba · 26-30, F

@ChipmunkErnie That’s quite a worry! The Republic has developed contrary to how the Framers envisioned.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@ChipmunkErnie

In 2008, the Supreme Court made the following (5-4) ruling in the case of District of Columbia vs Heller, summarized here:

"Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

Specifically, with regard to the militia, "The prefatory [militia] clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative [right to bear arms] clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

This makes sense to me, because if only a government militia was meant, then even Nazi Germany would qualify; it had a VERY "well-regulated militia."

ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M

@Thinkerbell The Supreme Court has, in its infinite wisdom, over the years ruled black people can be property, forced eugenics-driven sterilization is a good thing, women should not vote, etc. etc. I don't take their approval or disapproval of anything without a grain of salt and a lot of thought.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@ChipmunkErnie

At least two of your examples are not well taken.

The abolition of slavery and women's national voting rights were never within the Supreme Court's power to change; the original federal Constitution left those matters up to the individual states. They both required Constitutional amendments to make them apply nationally.

For example, Wyoming had women's suffrage as early as 1869 (even before it became a state in 1890).

ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M

@Thinkerbell Dred Scott, fugitive slave decisions, etc.. Re women's rights, it's not just voting, and yes, they varied from state to state. But my point is the Supreme Court has a long history of being on the wrong side of morality and human rights at times.

val70 · 51-55

@ChipmunkErnie As an historian I have to concur with your view of what "it" was orginally meant for and what the supreme court has of dubious legacy, but that what was. I mean, a country that bans alcohol. This that a sane state anyhow? I don't want to argue that but I do take your point that both the constitution and supreme court are up in air for what the future can bring. Trump's third term?

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@ChipmunkErnie

"...the Supreme Court has a long history of being on the wrong side of morality and human rights at times."

Certainly the Dred Scott decision was an egregious overstepping of the Court's authority, by declaring that NO African-Americans had the rights of citizenship in the US, even if they lived in non-slave states. That wretched decision was one of the proximate causes for the outbreak of the Civil War.

But I don't think the DC vs Heller decision falls into that category.

If you read the summaries of the Court's arguments in the link I gave above, I doubt that you can find much to dispute.

Specifically, if by "militia," the 2nd Amendment only means the right of the government to maintain a militia composed of certain people, then every country in the world qualifies, and the 2nd Amendment would simply be an unnecessary truism.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@val70

"...both the constitution and supreme court are up in air for what the future can bring. Trump's third term?"

That would require a Constitutional amendment, which takes not only the approval of 2/3 of both houses of Congress, but also the ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures. None of these requirements is remotely possible vis-à-vis Trump.

And the Supreme Court is not involved in amendment processes at all.