Originally Posted by
logroller
Well CH, Your argument seems to be revolve around how and, perhaps more importantly, by whom we define the terms 'arms' and 'infringed'.
Infringe carries two definitions. The first is to break or violate a treaty, law or right. As the Constitutional amendments are, in general, not to be broken, it would seem this definition would be inapplicable; as such wording could have been omitted were this to be the meaning. I think it would be dismissive of the legislative intent to assume this meaning.
The second definition for infringe, To break in or encroach upon something, would indicate that any transgression remotely related to the right of the People to keep and bear arms would be an infringement, and duly forbidden by this amendment. However, this invites speculation on, not only the meaning of arms, but also 'a well-regulated militia' and 'to keep and bear'.
As the colloquial use of what consititutes 'arms' have certainly expanded in their capabilities, I think it's necessary to define the latter two phrases in order to define the former.
The purpose of a well- regulated militia was to mount a defence against a standing army, which had elsewhere already been conveyed to Congress as a power to raise and support. The wording of the amendment, were it intended to be regulated by legislatures, rather federal or state, it assuredly would have been, but it was not. Therefore it would indicate the militia should bear the arms of those whom the founders feared would be used against the People: a domestic standing army; the national guard or police. This accounts for those argument of heavy weaponry, tanks, artillery etc.; that so long as the standing army shall neither keep nor bear any of these arms, nor shall the People. Clearly we have in this country a clear violation of the second amendment, with ripening conditions for tyranny that need not heed any other right of the People-- exactly as our founders has proscribed.
As for the meaning of 'to keep and bear', I look to my previous explanations. As the defense from tyranny is the primary intent, it would be a rational regulation of such a militia to bear arms at such a place or time such a tyranny would manifest. A private residence or business doesn't afford tyranny a public manifestation; thus, the right may be restricted by the coextensive right to privacy. Similarly, a government building would not be location which would manifest tyranny. As it is necessary for the government to express its views, no matter how egregious, it must have a place to express it; gov't acting upon those beyond the confines of the building would be a manifestation. Thus the limitation of bearing arms within the confines of the building would be limited; whereas outside in the public arena, that right of the People to keep and bear arms would be intact.
I Understand the meaning of ' to keep' gives each person a right to personal possession, as opposed to some central repository of said arms. That if the machine guns of the national guard, for example, were kept in such a manner as to be in the personal possession of its soldiers (as opposed to the base), than so shall the people have that right. Similarly, that as police officers may possess high-capacity magazines and assault weapons in perpetuity, outside their assigned time and place of their duties, they too keep arms wih the intent of being ever-ready to bear them. Respective of the proscribed intent of the second amendment, such actions by authorization of a legislature qualify as a standing army; and when such authorization coincides with a limitation of the people to keep such arms, there is an infringement upon the people's second amendment right.
The Second Amendment
Reply With Quote
