by everending

Created on: January 09, 2009

In the Heller case, the Supreme Court was careful to include a warning about the ultimate power of its decisionwhile the case does discuss the meaning of the Second Amendment, it is really only about the complete banning of handguns in the District of Columbia. However, the issue now is an issue of interpretation. While the Supreme Court insists that its ruling will not result in a complete disappearance of gun control legislation, the ruling does not make it easy for such legislation to exist. The most important element of the Heller case is the interpretation of the Second Amendment itself, especially the reference to the Militia over the more universal reference to the people.

There can be no Militia without the right to bear arms. A Militia defends both the country from foreign invasion, and the citizens from each other. As the Second Amendment states, a Militia is necessary within the construct of a free Statenot just in the idea of protection, but in the idea of personal liberty. Many of the rights outlined in the Constitution were pre-existing rights, but they were also rights infringed upon by the English monarchy. In the minds of the drafters, the right to bear arms was essential to the concept of freedom.

However, there are standards for any Militia. The right to defend one's country is not a blanket rightconversely, it can be argued that the right to bear arms is also not a blanket right. The ownership of firearms and their usage are two separate matters, and as the Second Amendment clearly outlines, the right to bear arms is restricted by how one bears those arms. In my opinion, as military service has changed, so has the Second Amendment. Just as there were standards for the Militia, there are standards for the modern armed forces, and consequently, standards for the right to bear arms. Those who would not be permitted to bear arms against the enemy should not be permitted to bear arms in their communityboth are, in essence, military functions with the ultimate goal of personal protection and freedom.

I believe while outright bans on firearm usage will never be Constitutional, certain restrictions on certain demographics will be. However, the move to ban the use of automatic weapons for those under the age of 21 is not constitutional. In reality, such a ban would prevent the greater part of our military from firing their own, federally-issued automatic rifles. However, age limits that would coincide with military service could be constitutional if worded correctly. For example, at a certain age, even with parental permission, minors are barred from military serviceso too could they be barred from firing automatic weapons, or maybe even any type of gun.

Learn more about this author, everending.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.