This post was published 4 years 2 months 6 days ago.Information may no longer be valid.
For the first time in nearly 70 years, the U.S. Supreme Court is trying to decide whether this text from the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is true, or – like I believe – just words of a different age:
“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.”
I feel the need to point out that I am from the UK, where gun laws are very different – yet strangely I feel we’re more free there (being free also from the fear of being shot at by a gun-wielding maniac).
We have the same people in the UK with the same problems. We have kids who leave notes saying they wanted to ‘go out in style’ – but without a gun they do not manage to take as many – or usually any – others with them.
We have an illegal gun problem, yes, but this pales into almost insignificance in comparison to the seemingly ‘open to all’ laws in the United States. In the UK, you can walk almost anywhere – anywhere – without fear of a gun. Our maniacs carry knives usually and while this may appear bad – they at least have to get within a range of a few feet to kill somebody. The best defense is distance and that is one that a gun provides you with.
I sincerely hope that the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington will modify the law in that state, because when they do this will eventually filter out to other states and the U.S. will finally advance from the words laid down a couple of hundred years ago, by men of a different age. You cannot live by guidelines set down so long ago and expect people’s lives to remain civilized.
I should add, perhaps, that I am not against people owning guns in the way that you might think. But nobody – nobody – needs to own a handgun or an automatic weapon (basically any weapon that is purely designed in this day and age for person to person shooting). In my opinion, if you want a gun, you buy one – you then register at a local gun club and they hold your gun, the bullets and the paper targets (the only thing you should be shooting at).
There are exceptions, of course. I have no issues with the Police being armed (though in the UK, they are not) and I have no problems with Farmers (for example, who have a large amount of land or animals they might need to defend from other animals) from having something similar to a Shotgun – which is all they’d need.
The Supreme Court though, cannot say what it would like to become law, or what it thinks the law should say: they can only interpret the constitution as it is written (of course over the course of history there are people who have done this more loosley). They must stick within the terms of the second amendment, however to me – the sentence before the “maintain and bear arms” really qualifies it, in the purposes of being in a militia people should have the legal right to own weapons. This was back at a time when the US had no army to speak of, and relied on states National Guards… nobody can claim the US doesn’t have an army now, and thus the constitution should be amended
However this is nothing the supreme court can do: 2/3 of all state legislatures must call on the amendment for it to take place. The Supreme Court are interpreters of the law, not instigators.
They can alter thinking, that’s what is really important. That is the first step towards a nationwide change of law. Importantly, the gun law is tied to the need for a militia, like you said. That means the right to bear arms is only for the defense of the country, a militia is an ‘army of citizens’ and it can now be argued that that – and therefore the right to bear arms – are no longer required.