Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:15 pm
Steve,
Your logic is interesting, but I don't buy it.
It's just my opinion, but it seems clear to me that what the Framers meant by a "free state" is what we would more precisely refer to as a "nation-state". That's the most straightforward entity that a "well regulated militia" would be necessary for the security of.
But the thing is, we still end up at the same place. The prefatory clause could just as well have read, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the formation of an excellent marching band....." and it wouldn't change the fact that the declarative clause says, ".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right of the people, not of the state, the militia, or the marching band. The people. And as the courts have repeatedly stated, the usage of the phrase "the people" in this and other parts of the Constitution means, "you and me".
DC is indisputably an organic part of our nation-state. Constitutionally, it is a federal enclave, and is ruled by federal law. (This is unlike "the several states" which are sovereign and ruled by state law except as provided by the Constitution.)
So it is pretty clear, to me at least, that the 2A applies to DC directly. Just as it is also clear (to me) that it applies to each of the several states via incorporation through the 14th amendment. I know that the courts have not held in favor of incorporation yet, but they have for the rest of the BOR so there is no reason why the 2A should be any different.
Parker/Heller might not reach there as the entity at issue is DC where incorporation may not be required. It will probably take some other case brought against NYC, Chicago or some similar repressive place.
Your logic is interesting, but I don't buy it.
It's just my opinion, but it seems clear to me that what the Framers meant by a "free state" is what we would more precisely refer to as a "nation-state". That's the most straightforward entity that a "well regulated militia" would be necessary for the security of.
But the thing is, we still end up at the same place. The prefatory clause could just as well have read, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the formation of an excellent marching band....." and it wouldn't change the fact that the declarative clause says, ".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right of the people, not of the state, the militia, or the marching band. The people. And as the courts have repeatedly stated, the usage of the phrase "the people" in this and other parts of the Constitution means, "you and me".
DC is indisputably an organic part of our nation-state. Constitutionally, it is a federal enclave, and is ruled by federal law. (This is unlike "the several states" which are sovereign and ruled by state law except as provided by the Constitution.)
So it is pretty clear, to me at least, that the 2A applies to DC directly. Just as it is also clear (to me) that it applies to each of the several states via incorporation through the 14th amendment. I know that the courts have not held in favor of incorporation yet, but they have for the rest of the BOR so there is no reason why the 2A should be any different.
Parker/Heller might not reach there as the entity at issue is DC where incorporation may not be required. It will probably take some other case brought against NYC, Chicago or some similar repressive place.