Tags
“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.”
This, as most readers may know, is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights. Before considering what a reasonable companion Bill of Obligations might be, let’s consider what the Amendment itself says.
The construction of the sentence is essentially:
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.
Some have emphasized the last few words: “Shall not be infringed” and argued that this means no regulations for keeping and bearing arms is Constitutional. Despite that, no-one actually believes that. No-one would argue that the government cannot regulate poisons, or bombs, or tanks. No-one argues that convicted felons should be allowed to arm themselves while out on bail.
The overall construction of the sentence clearly gives a rationale and that rationale is the premise that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. In particular, it does not say that the reason is that it you, as an individual, have a right to keep your home or your family or your body safe and that’s why you as an individual have the right to bear arms. That might be a good thing. I’m not saying it isn’t. But it is simply not at all what the Second Amendment says. What it says is that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
A free State could have a well-regulated militia to help ensure the security of that free State and in order to help ensure that that State does indeed have a well-regulated militia, there could be necessary training of how to use arms. The State could limit participation in the militia to those who are over 18, say, or over 15. The State could limit participation to those who are physically and mentally capable to use whatever arms they have. It wouldn’t add to the security of the free State to put rifles in the hands of people who were blind, or incapacitated or inebriated. If the goal is to increase the security of the free State, it would make sense to train people how to use whatever arms they have in a safe and effective fashion. It adds nothing to the security of the State to have people blowing their brains out or killing their comrades with weapons they don’t know how to use.
Notice that there is nothing in the Second Amendment that says or implies that anyone and everyone who wants to be part of the well-regulated Militia is entitled to join that well-regulated Militia. Everyone who wants to be a medical doctor does not automatically get to be a doctor. Everyone who wants to be a lawyer does not automatically get to be a lawyer. Everyone who wants to be President does not automatically get to be President. Everyone who wants to be an airline pilot or a trucker or a public school teacher or a real estate agent doesn’t get to assume that role. They have to show that they have the capacity and the training to carry out those roles. Not everyone can be a rocket scientist.
Speaking of rocket scientists, it would not have taken a rocket scientist to have written the Second Amendment to mean the various things that people have claimed it means. For example, it could have easily said, “…the right of each individual to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t.
The Second Amendment could have said, “A well-armed populace being necessary …” It doesn’t.
The Second Amendment could have said, “In order to ensure that every person is safe and secure, the right of each individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t.
The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had the vocabulary and intelligence to clearly state that each individual must be able to bear arms in order to protect themselves if that is what was intended. It wasn’t. So, they didn’t.
Regardless of how often or how loudly people insist that the Second Amendment means something that it doesn’t, it still doesn’t make it so.
However, regardless of whether someone interprets the Second Amendment to mean what it says or to mean something else entirely; e.g., that every individual, regardless of capacity or training, has a right to get as many guns as they want, it is still worthwhile to consider what might be in a “Bill of Obligations” with respect to arms.
What might be some elements of such a Bill?
Just as we require a person to show capacity for many roles before we allow people to have that role, it seems that is also a reasonable obligation for having and using things that kill. If you would like to drive your automobile on public roads, you need to prove that your automobile is safe. You have an obligation to insure that it’s safe. Your car has to pass a safety inspection. If it’s unsafe, it could harm you or others.
Your obligations don’t end there. In order to drive a car, you have to show that you have the ability and knowledge to drive a car and that you have an understanding of the rules of the road. Even after you obtain a license, you have to follow those rules. If you run a red light, you will be fined. If you run enough red lights, you will have your license taken away.
Candidate obligations that relate to the Second Amendment might include:
You have an obligation to learn which arms are appropriate to your needs and within your capabilities.
You have an obligation to learn to properly use the arms you own.
You have an obligation to prove that you have the capacity & training for the arms you have.
You have an obligation to operate such arms in a safe, reasonable manner.
Notice that to join a legitimate Militia, you would need to fulfill these obligations.
Some examples:
You have an obligation to learn which arms are appropriate to your needs and within your capabilities.
Don’t choose a weapon that is too heavy or has too much “kick.” If you want a gun to kill gophers, don’t choose a howitzer or a machine gun.
You have an obligation to learn to properly use the arms you own.
Learn how to load, unload, fire, and maintain your weapons. Learn how to keep it safe from unwanted and unauthorized use.
You have an obligation to learn to properly use the arms you own.
Your weapon should be periodically inspected to ensure it’s working properly. Your own knowledge and capacity should be tested periodically; not every five minutes, but not every five decades either.
You have an obligation to operate such arms in a safe, reasonable manner.
Your weapons should be under lock and key except when you actually want to use them. Untrained people, including your own toddlers, should not have access to them. Do not point a gun at someone as a “joke.” Do not fire your gun at an uncertain target. “Something’s moving in the bushes” or “I thought I heard a noise” are not sufficient reasons to fire a gun. Don’t take your gun out “just because you’re upset” about your life or about what someone else has done. Don’t take your gun to unreasonable places like airports, airplanes, movie theaters, rock concerts, or Walmart. Don’t operate your weapon when you’re drunk, stoned, or otherwise incapacitated from illness or drugs. Don’t go looking for trouble with your weapons.
What other obligations do weapon owners have?
———————-
petersironwood 