by RNH Nello

Created on: April 22, 2009

In short no!

If anything is to be done about laws concerning guns, it is to eliminate such laws! If the legal system means anything then the recent case of "District to Columbia et al. v. Heller" should make this obvious.

Within the United States
there is no legal foundation to support any federal laws restricting the personal ownership of guns with a single exception. That exception applies to those who have been convicted of a felony and as part of the sentence have had some of their rights as a citizen restricted. However, it would be interesting to see a case by a felon who has lost the right to keep and bear arms claiming that such acts by the court being unconstitutional. .

Those who have relied on an interpretation of the Second Amendment which promotes the idea that that citizen's right to keep and bear arms' is only tied to being a member of a militia have been proven wrong with the case of "District to Columbia et al. v. Heller."

Of course that citizen's incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment could have come about because they are reading a version of the Second Amendment which was never ratified.
Of course that can't be true, and yet, the most common current version of the Second Amendment is as follows:

"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." This is really nice except for the fact that the Second Amendment wasn't ratified in this form. If you contact the Library of Congress and request a copy of the Second Amendment as ratified you will find that it actually reads as follows:

"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."

Some may say, "Well that's only a difference of three commas verses one comma." However if you take the two versions to someone who actually knows how to parse and diagram a sentence (a skill disappearing from our education system) you will find that what the Founders ratified is very narrow in meaning and in fact means what it says, the federal government can do nothing' that infringes' the individual right to keep and bear arms.

In the face of that reality some may yet say that they don't care, they know' that individuals having guns causes' many deaths and harm.

Yes, they know it but the facts don't support their assertions. In a country such as Switzerland
where every adult is issued a military' weapon, they have one

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>