SECOND AMENDMENT: “…THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE”
JAMES W. PRESCOTT, Ph.D.
“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.”
The only purpose of The Second Amendment is the "security of a Fee State” and not the security of the individual citizen; the security of the home; the security of hunting or for any other “security”.
These other “securities” do not exist in the language of the Second Amendment.
This “security” is to be accomplished by a “well regulated Militia” that cannot be implemented by the individual citizen but only through State and Federal governments. A “well regulated Militia” is assured by the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—a necessity given that “Arms” consisted of a single-shot muzzle loading rifle possessed by virtually every adult citizen.
The culture of Colonial America cannot be ignored in the interpretation of The Bill of Rights.
Peter Finn in an essay in The Washington Post “NRA money helped reshape gun law (Mach 13, 2013) stated:
For advocates of an individual’s right to bear arms, the Heller decision in 2008 was a vindication. In writing the majority opinion, Scalia said, “The second amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Given the language of the Second Amendment, Justice Scalia’s decision is wrong and untenable, as is the consenting Judges that agreed with him.
It is transparent that the Second Amendment’s protection of the individual citizen to bear “Arms” applies to being a member of a “well regulated Militia” for the specific purpose of assuring the “security of a Free State”.
It is incumbent upon the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Heller and affirm that the sole purpose of the Second Amendment is the “security of the free State”.