Thursday, April 27, 2017

+131 (second amendment interpretation 95)

It is both by default and also the stronger case that the necessity stated in "being necessary to the security of a free State" is the creator of the right described in the Arms clause as the "right of the people". So if the latter is taken to refer to an already existing right, what is left here except to answer the question of whether we have a militia necessity that gives a right to keep and bear Arms and if the answer is no then the Arms clause of the Amendment is no longer applicable?   

No comments: