Original intent and the Second Amendment – Post Register

Original intent is a term often quoted in Supreme Court rulings. It means what was actually intended at the time that the Constitution was written. The best way to make this determination posthumously is to examine the historical records of society and technology at the time they were written.

In 1787, when the Constitution was written, the majority of the American landmass was under control of Native Americans, slavery was flourishing and the prevailing weapon was the flintlock rifle. Much of the frontier was lawless, and there were frequent clashes between the natives and the people moving onto their lands. According to historical records, there were frequent groups of armed men used to hunt down runaway slaves.

Under these circumstances, it was entirely understandable that there were constitutional protections for militias and gun ownership since the government clearly had a policy of driving the Native Americans from their ancestral lands, the frontier was often lawless and slaves often either rebelled against brutal conditions or attempted an escape to the north or even Canada. Hence the Second Amendment was written and ratified securing the right to hunt down runaway slaves and to force Native Americans from their lands.

In actual practice, the military had the responsibility for driving Native Americans from their lands, and thus the main use of private armed militias was enforcing slavery. These things are well documented in the historical record.

Fast forward to the present, and these conditions have no relevance. Flintlocks have long since been replaced by weapons with lethality far beyond anything imaginable by the writers of the Constitution. Native Americans have long since been driven from their ancestral lands and confined to reservations. Even though the movies have glamorized the posses of cowboys, by far the greatest use of the militia component of the Second Amendment was for the capture of runaway slaves. Slavery has long since been eliminated, and militias have long since been replaced by city, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Yet the Second Amendment still stands as the law of the land in clear violation of the original intent doctrine. Not only is it still the law of the land, but it also has been expanded to allow private ownership of weapons of war that have unleashed mayhem within our cities.

Can anyone claim that this was what our founding fathers anticipated?

If a challenge to the Second Amendment were to be taken to the Supreme Court, the outcome would depend upon whether the justices were to own up to the reality that exists today or vote to stick with the president and Senate that put them onto the court. Often the Supreme Court justices bend to their political base rather than the original intent that they claim.

See the rest here:
Original intent and the Second Amendment - Post Register