The thing about "the right to bear arms" (as it applies to you and me) is that it doesn't even come from the

Asked almost 2 years ago - Hastings, MI

2nd amendment (not directly anyway), it comes from a Supreme Court decision ABOUT the 2nd Amendment called "The District of Columbia vs. Heller" . The 2nd Amendment, as written by the Founding Fathers and set down in the Bill of Rights is:

"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."

Which (until 2008 when the Washington gun lobby stepped in) has always been interpreted as "You have the right to bear arms, as long as you are serving in a militia". It was only AFTER DoC v. Heller (when the NRA flooded the case with cash) that it was re-interpreted as "You have the right to bear arms, unconnected with military service".

Attorney answers (6)

  1. Becket J. Jones

    Pro

    Contributor Level 15

    5

    Lawyers agree

    Answered . Respectfully, this is not a political forum for scholarly discussion about the 2nd amendment. And, cherry picking dicta from case law hoping to stir up a debate amongst a bunch of criminal defense lawyers is an exercise in futility.

    An Attorney-Client relationship has not been established. Becket J. Jones is not your attorney.
  2. Edward Jacob Sternisha

    Pro

    Contributor Level 17

    4

    Lawyers agree

    1

    Answered . If I am to guess (because you never actually asked a question), you have an OWI (or some form of drunk driving conviction) and now you cannot carry a concealed pistol. Is that correct? Keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute and caselaw has said so. Here is a link to my Facebook site where I recently posted a statement that may help you better understand it. The Government may restrict firearms under certain situations or from certain people. Scroll down and look at my January 31 posting. Then click on the case I noted and read it. Take a look: https://www.facebook.com/CallEdInstead?ref=hl

    The comments listed here do not create an attorney-client relationship. The comments are for informational... more
  3. Charles K. Kenyon Jr.

    Contributor Level 20

    6

    Lawyers agree

    Answered . What has this got to do with DUI?

    Confidential information should not be disclosed in this Internet forum. Click on the "More..." link for... more
  4. Ted Harvatin

    Pro

    Contributor Level 20

    5

    Lawyers agree

    Answered . In Colonial era, "well regulated" meant properly trained. Militia was a group of private citizens with a common purpose. Take your conspiracy theories somewhere else.

  5. Joshua Sachs

    Contributor Level 19

    5

    Lawyers agree

    Answered . I would not put it that way. The Second Amendment is notoriously ambiguous and is subject, for many reasons. to more than one interpretation. But in our system it is the duty of the Supreme Court to make those interpretations for legal purposes. Although numerous decisions, including some previous observations by the Supreme Court itself, generally leaned toward other interpretations, the matter is resolved, for legal and practical purposes, by Heller. As a matter of purely academic discussion, of course, it remains open forever.

  6. Michael Lawrence Doyle

    Pro

    Contributor Level 20

    4

    Lawyers agree

    Answered . It is being interpreted much differently now than it was then.

    This is not intended as individual legal advice and there is no attorney client relationship established by this... more

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask a Lawyer

Get free answers from experienced attorneys.

 

Ask now

19,425 answers this week

2,550 attorneys answering

Ask a Lawyer

Get answers from top-rated lawyers.

  • It's FREE
  • It's easy
  • It's anonymous

19,425 answers this week

2,550 attorneys answering