THE RIGHT'S ROE:

The Second Amendment, which I daresay most readers know by heart, says:

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 amendment was passed in relation to a document, the American Constitution as unamended, which says (in Section VIII, paragraphs 15 and 16) that Congress shall have the power:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...

Now it seems to me that on any natural reading of the above, the right to keep and bear arms that is not to be infringed is in the context of a well-ordered militia, not in the context of going shopping. If it were simply a matter of allowing people to carry guns whenever and wherever they felt like it, the amendment would surely have read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms..." simpliciter. There would have been no need to mention the militia at all. In fact, there would have been a need, or at least a good reason, not to mention it.

I am in sympathy with Originalists who believe that the Constitution should be interpreted as literally as possible, but they should not abandon the position once it yields a result different from the one that they would like.

Tweet   @brothersjudd