What do you believe the 2nd amendment to mean?
The 2nd Amendment to me is a redundancy; the 2nd does nothing but forbid the federal government the exercise of illegitimate powers it was never granted. The primary bind on the federal government's power to impact the personal arms of the private citizen is that no power was ever granted to the federal government to even contemplate the personal arms of the private citizen.
That's why I prefer not to engage in any degree of textual analysis of the Amendment as the right is not created, given, granted or otherwise established by the words chosen to merely recognize and secure the citizen's pre-existing right. The biggest flaw in Scalia's opinion in
Heller was his engaging in such a fruitless analysis. He should have simply rebuffed the dissents' textual arguments by re-affirming the Court's longstanding (135 years and counting) sentiment that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment and is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.
That's not to say that the Amendment and the framer's "intent" in securing the right does hasn't had something legitimate to say about the protection sphere of the right. Problem is, what it tells us isn't plainly evident by the text. The framer's primary intent, the "object" of the Amendment was to preserve the treasured principle of a
general militia and to ensure that the armed citizenry would always be a viable entity to aid the civil authorities in times of need . . . That the farmers and carpenters, the butchers, bakers and candlestick makers could, at a moment's notice when called to muster, present themselves with an appropriate weapon and ammunition, (supplied by themselves and of the type in common use at the time), with the necessary accessories and sufficient provisions to be effective warriors in the field for a few days.
By and large the citizenry have always been (and remain) properly situated and capable and willing to fulfill that role but the framework to bring that object of the Amendment into action has always been neglected,
and since 1903, completely extinguished. The armed citizenry FORMED INTO MILITIAS WHEN NECESSARY is a core principle of the classical republic the founders established; the principle needs no action of Congress to exist,
only to function and that is a failure of government not the citizen . . . Now, there is no militia duty impressed upon the citizen; since 1903 no entity (federal / state / private) is constitutionally / legally authorized to call upon the citizens, to train them and deploy them as militia as set out in the conferred powers of Art I, § 8, cls. 15 & 16.
While the inherent right to arms of the citizen does not depend on one's militia attachment status, that primary object of the Amendment, again to perpetuate the general militia concept, does establish certain benchmarks for what is a protected arm
UNDER THE 2ND AMENDMENT. As we are familiar with, the arm must be of the type
that is/are; a) usually employed in civilized warfare, b) that constitute the ordinary military equipment, c) able to contribute to the common defense, d) in common use at the time.
That criteria always has an important (and legitimate IMNSHO) limitation on it; the government can make arguments as to certain weapon types being "dangerous and unusual" and thus legitimizing restrictions on access to the general population. Heller certainly recognizes this and while I have quite a few complaints about Scalia's opinion he does an effective balancing act on this point. He re-affirmed the fundamental nature of the right when the entire framework of the right's protection sphere (up to Heller) has been filtered / focused on the militia duty aspect (incorrectly of course). I think Scalia did a good job of finally divesting the militia aspect from the right while retaining protection criteria for effective militia weaponry. Without a significant political shift on the Court the only direction to go from here is further reining in of government interference with the right to arms. The protection sphere will shift from being focused on militia usefulness and be directed more on what the legitimate powers of government are regarding the personal arms of the private citizen. The outlook for government, as long as the 2nd is held to fundamental status on par with the 1st Amendment, isn't too encouraging for anti-gunners.
To me, the 2nd Amendment has always been the "canary in the coal mine" for judging anyone's constitutional principles. Their statements on it often expose the hollowness of their claims of allegiance to the principles of conferred powers, retained rights and the often mindlessly parroted "consent of the governed" tenet. Of course people who claim to believe in the "consent of the governed" recoil in horror when you say that they must believe in the insurrectionist interpretation of the 2nd . . . And they look perplexed when you ask, surely having the right to consent to be governed means you also have the right to rescind that consent? LOL
If I were asked to offer my rework of the 2nd Amendment in modern language so even the most idiotic leftist can understand it, it would say:
The existence and viability of a properly functioning citizen militia (the body of citizens that are capable of bearing arms and capable of acting in concert) is necessary to the security of this Nation established on the principle of securing individual liberty from both foreign and domestic threats.
To ensure that the citizenry of the United States of America shall be properly situated to perform their duty if called or defend their liberties when threatened, the inherent, individual right of the people to keep and bear arms of the types usually employed in civilized warfare and that constitute the ordinary military equipment, or any small arm with military usefulness, is hereby secured, to be forever excepted out of the powers delegated to government by the people.
All Federal, State and lower political subdivisions of government are prohibited to disarm any individual without just cause and/or due process for actual crimes committed.
