The individual
right to bear arms
Editorial
from Washington Times
Posted 5/10/02
This week, Solicitor General Theordore
B. Olson went before the U.S. Supreme Court and began making the federal
government's case that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect an
individual right to keep and bear arms. "The current position of
the United States," Mr. Olson wrote in briefs filed with the court,
"is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of
individuals, including persons who are not members of any state militia
or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear
their own firearms." (Italics added.)
Many people likely do not realize that the
linchpin of gun-control efforts for decades has been the exact opposite
of Mr. Olson's position — that the Second Amendment guarantees only
the corporate right of "the militia," not private individuals
unconnected to the armed forces, to keep and bear arms. Indeed, the
government itself has taken that very position for years as well.
It is a patently ridiculous argument,
however, that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right
to keep and bear arms. To accept it, one must take the position that the
Founding Fathers, who led a war against an oppressive government,
endorsed disarming every citizen who wasn't somehow connected to
"the militia," or another branch of the armed services —
obvious historical evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Most
colonial Americans, as any school child knows, possessed firearms
openly, even though most had little or nothing to do with any formal
branch of the armed services or "militia." And why bother
writing a Second Amendment guarantee to protect a government right?
In point of fact, the Bill of Rights was
written explicity to protect individual rights against government
encroachment. It is a near-certainty that the Constitution — which
spells out the authority of the federal government in relation to the
states and to individuals — would never have been ratified absent the
Bill of Rights. And had the Founding Fathers attempted to disarm the
average citizen, it is equally certain there would have been another
revolution in short order.
Those familiar with the colonial era know,
furthermore, that "the militia" was synonymous with what we
might today call a "citizen's army" — that is, a potential
force comprised of every able-bodied man who might be called upon to
defend the fledgling nation in the event of an outside threat. It did
not mean a formal "army" as we understand the concept today.
Finally and most telling of all as regards the "intent" of the
Founders, there is abundant, highly specific written evidence that they
sought to guarantee the average person's right to keep and bear arms as
a means of keeping the government itself in check. The security of a
"free state" depended upon an armed citizenry, they said. So
it does.
Mr. Olson's — the federal government's
— refreshing return to an honest reading of the Second Amendment is to
be cheered.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed
under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml] |