Published: November 05, 2009 09:47 pm      

Gun owners take heart: The Constitution is on your side

Point Blank

Gun owners take heart. The Constitution is on your side.

The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Still, the right of citizens to bear arms is often discussed in heated tones and emotional language.

Political assassinations, workplace violence and school shootings inevitably spark public outcries for control of firearms.

These demands are frequently countered with refrains such as “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

If we bypass such rhetoric and look at the issue from a constitutional standpoint, however, we learn that there is ample legal justification for the right to bear arms.

All we have to do is weigh the original intent of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. It reads, “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.” In plain English, the statement means what it says and says what it means.

There is little room for political maneuvering and liberal construal when you have the facts in front of you.

And when the purpose of any constitutional provision or law is in question, it is fitting to return to the thoughts and words of those who originally framed it.

For the Second Amendment, it is helpful to examine the ideas of George Mason, the Virginia constitutionalist who wrote several specific safeguards of individual rights for the Commonwealth in 1776.

And the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments added to the United States Constitution in 1791 — incorporates several of Mason’s safeguards.

What’s even more remarkable is that a review of Mason’s papers indicates that his notion of the militia — that group empowered by law to bear arms — went far beyond an organized group of men in uniform.

During a debate in Richmond on June 16, 1788, Mason rhetorically stated: “I ask, who are the militia?” And then he answered his own question with these words: “They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officials.”

There can be little doubt that George Mason, “father of the Bill of Rights,” never intended to restrict the right to bear arms to a relatively few men in uniform.

Therefore, the original concept of the Second Amendment was that the militia consisted of all people; and to ensure security of a free country, the people had the right to keep and bear arms.

n n n

Early in the 20th century Congress interpreted the militia more narrowly than Mason did.

On Jan. 23, 1903, Congress defined the militia as all able-bodied male citizens more than 18 and less than 45 years of age.

These men were divided into two classes: the organized militia, known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, and the remainder, known as the Reserve Militia.

Thus, Congress classified all males within certain age limits, and not in the National Guard, as members of the militia.

These men would now seem to be the “people to keep and bear arms,” those whose right to firearms “shall not be infringed” under the Second Amendment.

In addition, under the broad doctrine of equal rights, it would appear that women should also be included, if they fall into the proper age groups eligible for military service.

Now, since no provision of the United States Constitution defines the rights of gun owners throughout the 50 states, the state constitutions certainly would seem to be the highest law in such cases, as provided in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

These amendments reserve for the states and the people all rights and powers not spelled out in the United States Constitution. And because the Second Amendment does not definitely state the rights of gun owners, the federal government cannot alter the rights that are defined in individual state constitutions.

What is more, at least half of these state constitutions go beyond the Second Amendment by spelling out that the right to bear arms is an individual right for personal protection or defense of home and property and has nothing to do with a “well-regulated militia.”

In other words, the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and their homes shall not be questioned.

Given such declarations, the states with these and similar provisions could not possibly prohibit ownership of handguns or any other arms. Consequently, it should be clear that the Second Amendment was not originally intended to apply only to militia but to the “whole people.”

Congress, to be sure, has indicated that the militia consists of all able-bodied young and middle-aged males (and now perhaps females too).

Therefore, it is clearly evident that the right to bear arms is rooted in solid legal precedent.

It is spelled out in black and white. The Constitution means what it says.

-----

Top o’ the morning!

— Blankenship is a columnist for The Register-Herald. E-mail: jabbb@suddenlink.net