Voice of the People: Justice Barrett’s Second Amendment dilemma

In some 229 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the framers’ intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment. I will relate further by demonstration, my understanding of the intent of the framers using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “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.” Merriam Webster defines militia as "a body of citizens organized for military service; a whole body of able-bodied citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.” If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe one’s right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self) The Article of Confederation lists 11 references to “person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do. Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.