SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- Many cherish their right to keep and bear arms. <\/p>\n
But, Second Amendment rights are not without controversy. <\/p>\n
The Second Amendment ruffles lots of political feathers. <\/p>\n
Here's what the amendment says: <\/p>\n
\"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.\" <\/p>\n
Having just fought off the strongest military power in the world to gain independence, the founders were acutely aware that the ability of the people to access arms to keep government in check was vital. <\/p>\n
But those today who argue for increased restrictions on gun ownership point to the amendment's use of the term \"militia,\" and say that this refers to the modern day National Guard, not all citizens. <\/p>\n
Gun proponents push back by saying that militias at the time of the Constitution's ratification included all able-bodied males over the age of 16, who could be pressed into defense of their land and rights. <\/p>\n
For years, the Supreme Court refused to rule that the Second Amendment was incorporated-meaning that it applied to all the states. This is why states have historically had a patchwork of different rules for gun ownership and use. <\/p>\n
But the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. The City of Chicago in 2010 that the Second Amendment was incorporated, and gun rights advocates were delighted since this seemed to mean that gun restrictions would be ruled unconstitutional. <\/p>\n
But this ruling did little to quell the Second Amendment controversy since the amendment itself contains the term \"well regulated.\" Regulation implies some set of rules or standards, and even if one believes that the people are the militia in this amendment - not the National Guard- it is hard to imagine that the government doesn't have an interest in regulating arms to some extent. Even the term \"arms\" raises questions. Does this mean simply guns, or can we add bazookas and drones to the list? After all, people can own both. <\/p>\n
Even the court's most conservative justice of the 20th century, Antonin Scalia, seemed to agree with some regulations of arms, at least broadly defined. This is an issue that will likely never be settled, but it's important to know the constitutional basis for all the controversy. <\/p>\n
(Brian Calfano) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Here is the original post: <\/p>\n
Analysis: Second Amendment Rights Come with Controversy - Story - OzarksFirst.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- Many cherish their right to keep and bear arms Continue reading