I believe the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is an inalienable, individual right of the People.
I believe Idaho should support the rights of its citizens to keep and bear arms to preserve their safety, out door and hunting lifestyle, and defend against an out of control government or totalitarianism.
I believe in the natural right of every man and woman to protect themselves or their loved ones from those attempting to injure or murder them. Moreover, America is not immune to the loss of liberty by one’s government.
The Framers did not say “A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State,” because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government. This is the case of both physical and operational control, to preserve the “security of a free State.”
George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said, “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.” Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a “militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves.” These are two of many examples for that era.
This definition in keeping with English usage of that time, which included within the meaning of the verb “regulate” the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups as individual militia members is consistent with the Framers’ use of the the phrase “A well regulated Militia.”
This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton’s observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people’s militias ability to be a match for a standing army, “. . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . .”
If history is our guide, there will always be those who threaten liberty; therefore, this right serves as a deterrent to tyranny. The exercise of this right should be the very last remedy to a tyrannical government. Peaceful and non-violent means should be exhausted before taking up arms against one’s government or one another.
Source: The Lectric Law Library – Daniel J. Schultz
For further discussion, see:
- “The Second Amendment has most recently been interpreted to grant the right of gun ownership to individuals for purposes that include self-defense (see Dist. of Columbia et al. v. Heller Supreme Court Case – 2008). At first it was thought to apply only to the Federal government, but through the mechanism of the Fourteenth Amendment, it has been applied to the states as well.” – Source: Cornell University Law School – 2/12/2016
- The Supreme Court held up the right of individuals to keep and bear arms in 2008, please review District of Columbia et al v. Heller.