I already posted this on my blog, but I thought it would be a start for some ranting:
I just found some notes that I scribbled out during an informal meeting I attended with Eugene Volokh, a well known constitutional law professor at UCLA and creator of the Volokh Conspiracy, when he came to lecture here at the U on the impact of the recent Supreme Court decision, DC v. Heller (which addressed the DC handgun ban.) He followed the Court's meticulous examination of the wording of the 2nd Amendment. I found one of his points very compelling-- some argue that the 2nd Amendment basically applied only to citizens serving in Militias, not ordinary citizens. Volokh pointed out that the language was a "right" to bear arms and that contemporary uses of the phrase "bear arms" referenced service in the military. His point was that military service is not a "right" in the same way as the other rights in the Bill of Rights. Citizens do not normally exert their "right" to service in the armed forces-- in those days many were actually compelled to serve. So, the "bear arms" referenced in the 2nd amendment would certainly have to be something more than what applied to those in military service only. I found this very interesting and blog-worthy
2 comments:
Very interesting point. People seem to only read what they want it to mean. I love when concepts are put into perspective like that. I never thought about whether it was a "right" to serve in the armed forces or not. I'm sure it's definitely a privelage, and as of late, a choice.
I imagine that the second amendment was a no-brainer to the founding fathers. Their way of thinking throughout the formation of our country was to allow as much power to be left with the people as possible. I'm sure they thought it would be easy to interpret. Those principles are as true today as they were then.
Post a Comment