The Constitution in Plain English - Part 2 of 10

What if the Constitution means what it says? This is the second in an irregular series of musings that compare the words of the Bill of Rights to what the politicians and lawyers and flacks have interpreted the words to mean, drawing conclusions based on the theory that the plain English of the original document as opposed to the modern translation. I am eschewing painstaking research and writing from the gut, the whole idea being to focus on the actual words.

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.

A militia was any group of armed citizens who could be called upon when the state was in trouble. (This was back when the former English colonies were considered "free and independent states.") The reason it might be necessary to raise militias was in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." (And you thought these were pinko commie left-wing concepts! Ya dere hey, ol' Tom Jefferson was quite the pinko.) With no standing armies, you might need to get a bunch of folks together to repel invaders on short notice, and protecting the freedom to own weapons ensured that such folks would be available.

Let's remember: The new republics were less than five years removed from an armed conflict with an occupying power, so the founders were familiar with the tyranny even a well-meaning government could impose - and they had written a declaration of independence that began with an asserton that when a government starts to destroy the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, "it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

With vivid memories of that conflict, the framers of the Constitution made sure to add a clause that said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," on the off chance that some day even their brave new government may need to be altered or abolished. The people - anyone who chooses. Keep - maintain in their possession and homes. Bear - carry around as they deem necessary. Shall not be infringed - this is an absolute right.

As I read this amendment, part of me thinks the state might be justified in assembling a list of who owns arms, so those people can be contacted and asked to volunteer their help if the state is threatened. Another part of me thinks such a registry would be foolhardy, for an invading enemy or emerging despot could use the list to confront and disarm gun owners. But in any case, it is clear to me that it would be completely inappropriate, under the Constitution, to license guns or require gun owners to pay a fee to get their names and possessions into such a registry. If you can't afford the gun registration fee and nonregistered guns are considered illegal, then government would be infringing on your right to keep and bear arms by requiring a fee and/or a permit.

Given the context, it's clear the writers were talking about making sure the people were in a position to protect themselves should tyranny or invading armies ever raise their ugly heads again. This is 230 years since the revolution, but the world remains dangerous and tryanny has not been eradicated from its face. This amendment is not about deer hunting.

Well, Richardson you lunatic, surely you're not saying people have the right to own cannons and machine guns and tanks? Why would private individuals need to have such firepower? Strictly speaking, that's exactly what I'm saying. Why would anyone need them? I don't know - as long as they don't use them against me or any other peaceful law-abiding individual, it's none of my business. The amendment says "arms." It doesn't say handguns or deer rifles or Rambo knives or baseball bats. It doesn't exclude any particular weapon. It just says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" to "protect the security of a free state."

Permits, licenses, fees, bans, limitations of any sort on the right to keep and bear arms - they're all unconstitutional. Laws that require gun wielders to have taken safety courses before they can keep and bear arms? Learning how to use weapons safely and responsibly are simple common sense, but laws? and required courses? I'm not so sure.

Don't we need regulations on guns to control street gangs and other bad guys more easily? No, we don't. That's the kind of police-state mentality that leads to searching for terrorists by stripping down innocent people and rifling through their personal effects before they can enter airplanes or public buildings. The bad guys by definition will break the law to get their hands on weapons; the only people such regulations control are the innocent.

Laws and regulations that infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms are simply unconstitutional. The Second Amendment couldn't be more clear: "shall not be infringed."

This all assumes, of course, that the Constitution means what it says in plain English.