http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
Justice Stevens argues that what the FF meant by 2A was for the right to keep and bear arms "when serving in the militia", and although he doesn't explicitly say it, he defines "well-regulated" in the modern sense of "controlled/organized" instead of its 1700s meaning of "well calibrated". He also states that federal judges understood the 2A to pertain to firearms for military purposes only, and that state and local govs are within the law to impose restrictions on gun ownership.
Personally, I think it's a little startling that somebody as highly educated as a SCOTUS justice would take "well-regulated" out of its historical context, and the fact that militias at the time were composed of volunteer citizens banding together to protect their communities. In addition, he never comments on "the right of the people...shall not be infringed" and that the 2A refers to an INDIVIDUAL citizen's right, NOT a governmental one. Thoughts?
Justice Stevens argues that what the FF meant by 2A was for the right to keep and bear arms "when serving in the militia", and although he doesn't explicitly say it, he defines "well-regulated" in the modern sense of "controlled/organized" instead of its 1700s meaning of "well calibrated". He also states that federal judges understood the 2A to pertain to firearms for military purposes only, and that state and local govs are within the law to impose restrictions on gun ownership.
Personally, I think it's a little startling that somebody as highly educated as a SCOTUS justice would take "well-regulated" out of its historical context, and the fact that militias at the time were composed of volunteer citizens banding together to protect their communities. In addition, he never comments on "the right of the people...shall not be infringed" and that the 2A refers to an INDIVIDUAL citizen's right, NOT a governmental one. Thoughts?