Op-Ed: A Look At The Second Amendment

The Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, VA is providing an in-depth look at the first 10 amendments to Bill of Rights in anticipation of Bill of Rights Day, Dec. 15. Yesterday the focus was on Amendment II.
From the article:

Sanford Levinson, a distinguished constitutional law professor, wrote in the Yale Law Journal that the Second Amendment suffers from a lack of serious scholarship. Few law students envision the Second Amendment as an area of lucrative practice upon graduation. His article, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment," sent a shock wave through academia by suggesting that the amendment might actually mean what it says.

Issues involving guns have taken center stage in the cultural divide that separates Red and Blue America. Gun-control advocates point to the militia clause of the Second Amendment, arguing that it warrants a collective, rather than an individual, right to keep and bear arms. However, history--buttressed by the Founders' clear understanding--dictates that the amendment guarantees this right to individual Americans...

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.

Commentary by Larry S. Moore
:

Well said! This article, by Tom Moncure of Stafford County Virginia, provides historical context and the current importance of the 2nd Amendment. The article is well worth the time to read if you want an overview of our 2nd Amendment. If you are not well versed on the history and context of the 2nd Amendment, or need a refresher course, the article is even worth saving for future reference. Moncure reminds us (I am sure regular Buckeye readers already understand this) that the 2005 Castle Rock v. Gonzales US Supreme Court ruling means that personal self-defense is an individual responsibility.

I especially enjoyed the historical references that once required citizens to keep specified amounts of powder and bullets on hand. In fact, the article notes that fines could be levied for failure to have the required ammunition and equipment on hand. Additionally, the supplies for possible military service were exempt from the levy for indebtedness.

What a sharp contrast those historical references are to the current group of anti-gun politicians who want to ban guns and ammunition by any means possible, including taxation beyond any reason. It is a sharp contrast to those anti-gun lawyers who would sue firearms manufacturer's out of business. I have to wonder if people like Toby Hoover, Sarah Brady, the San Francisco Proposition H supporters, Columbus Mayor Coleman, or State Senator Eric Fingerhut have ever read or thought about the historical context of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment? Or perhaps they just don't care.

Click here for the entire Op-Ed piece by Tom Moncure.