Not Just the 2nd Amend
Has there ever been a Supreme Court case alleging a Second Amendment Right to personally keep and bear arms prove successful.
Consider this....if one understands the English language, the Second Amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America states, “A well regulated Militia …shall not be infringed.” Through the use of a ‘comma phrase’ the amendment also recognizes that such a Militia is “necessary to the security of a free State” and it so recognizes, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. But, what is being stated about the right of the people to keep and bear Arms? Is it that it shall not be infringed at all or is it that the right is intrinsic to, “A well regulated Militia”? Perhaps that, as a matter of English language rules, the function of such ‘comma phrase’ structure sets the meaning to be the latter. Therefore, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is intrinsic to the necessity of the existence of such a Militia. This is why the United States Supreme Court rulings are consistent in that the Second Amendment secured right is relevant only to the necessary existence of the Militia. Therefore, when a person stands to proclaim that they have a right to keep and bear Arms not recognizing the related Militia necessity, they most often lose their case.
It is not to say that the private Right to keep and bear Arms is not protected. Some have argued that the Right is not necessarily stated in the Second Amendment. That right is reserved from governmental control in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Further, if one were to go back to the notes of the First Congress’ deliberations on the Second Amendment one would find that initially the Amendment was written to include such personal Arms rights but the Delegates determined that if they mentioned those rights eventually they would get legislatively controlled. They chose to change the Second Amendment to exclude mentioning such private rights thereby excluding them wholly from governmental legislative control by leaving them under the blanket protection of the Ninth Amendment.
Regardless of amendment or article....everyone has the right to LIFE! By any means necessary!!
Has there ever been a Supreme Court case alleging a Second Amendment Right to personally keep and bear arms prove successful.
Consider this....if one understands the English language, the Second Amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America states, “A well regulated Militia …shall not be infringed.” Through the use of a ‘comma phrase’ the amendment also recognizes that such a Militia is “necessary to the security of a free State” and it so recognizes, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. But, what is being stated about the right of the people to keep and bear Arms? Is it that it shall not be infringed at all or is it that the right is intrinsic to, “A well regulated Militia”? Perhaps that, as a matter of English language rules, the function of such ‘comma phrase’ structure sets the meaning to be the latter. Therefore, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is intrinsic to the necessity of the existence of such a Militia. This is why the United States Supreme Court rulings are consistent in that the Second Amendment secured right is relevant only to the necessary existence of the Militia. Therefore, when a person stands to proclaim that they have a right to keep and bear Arms not recognizing the related Militia necessity, they most often lose their case.
It is not to say that the private Right to keep and bear Arms is not protected. Some have argued that the Right is not necessarily stated in the Second Amendment. That right is reserved from governmental control in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Further, if one were to go back to the notes of the First Congress’ deliberations on the Second Amendment one would find that initially the Amendment was written to include such personal Arms rights but the Delegates determined that if they mentioned those rights eventually they would get legislatively controlled. They chose to change the Second Amendment to exclude mentioning such private rights thereby excluding them wholly from governmental legislative control by leaving them under the blanket protection of the Ninth Amendment.
Regardless of amendment or article....everyone has the right to LIFE! By any means necessary!!
