from HuffPost:
Paul Helmke
The Second Amendment: The Real IssuePosted December 2, 2007 | 03:24 AM (EST)
Too many participants in the debate over what the Second Amendment means have framed the issue incorrectly.
The question should not be whether the Amendment protects an "individual" or "collective" right to own guns. That is a red herring, one that leads partisans on either side to look at only half of the Amendment - either the "Militia purpose" clause, or the "keep and bear Arms" clause.
As I argued earlier, we have to read all the words in the Second Amendment, not just the ones we like.
Instead, the real issue in this debate is what purpose the Amendment was written to protect, and how, therefore, the Second Amendment should be interpreted and applied. Fortunately, the Supreme Court clearly spoke to that question in the 1939 Miller decision:
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
So, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment has a militia purpose. Not a hunting purpose. Not a self-defense purpose. Not a target-shooting purpose. Not a "private purpose." Just a militia purpose.
Unfortunately, however, the lower-court opinion in the DC gun case ignored this nearly 70-year-old precedent and invented a rationale to invest the Second Amendment with a non-existent "private purpose."
This is the central reason why that decision was clearly erroneous and should be reversed. ....(more)
The complete piece is at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/the-second-amendment-the_b_74971.html