Much has been argued lately about the right to keep and bear arms. As an armchair judge, I have read the bulk of the briefs submitted in the Heller case, and I have had time to read the oral argument at the SCOTUS website. I have come to the following conclusions:
- The original “right” set forth in the English Bill of Rights allowed for “reasonable regulations.” There is no way to construe “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;” as an absolute right.
- Unlike the fact that under the English right, only Protestants may have arms, the Second Amendment says that it is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” There can be no question that there is no select subgroup of Americans that are being excluded from having arms.
- Unlike the fact that under the English right, Protestants may have arms “as allowed by law,” the Second Amendment says that this right “shall not be infringed.” Only the Pennsylvania constitution says it better: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
Historically, the SCOTUS has stated that the types of arms commonly held by the average soldier would be those arms that we should be able to bear. I agree with that premise. Does Congress actually expect that you and I could possibly repel an invasion using shotguns and deer rifles?