The subheadline of an email I received from the ANJRPC today states:

 

NJ Attorney General Argues That The Second Amendment

 

Right to Bear Arms Does Not Apply Outside the Home and

 

That the Public Needs to be Protected From Those Legally Carrying!

 

What jumped out at me when I read this is that New Jersey's AG actually has it half right (at least according to the subheadline)! The version of the Second Amendment that was ratified by the states reads:

 

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. (Emphasis added.)

 

Apparently, the AG does not take exception to the right to keep arms (inside the home), but she chooses to ignores the peoples' right to bear arms.

 

My simplistic analysis does not consider the terms in the second amendment that may be subject to interpretation: "well regulated," "militia," "security" and "free." However, several of these were considered and addressed by the Supreme Court in Heller.

 

My rant for the day...

Wait wait....."the Public Needs to be Protected From Those Legally Carrying!" Why the hell do I need to be protected from somebody who is doing something legally? Do I need to be protected from people driving the speed limit? Do I need to be protected from children riding the bus to school everyday? Do I need to be protected from someone walking their dog on a leash, and picking up their droppings? The answer is NO. So if I don't need to be protected from those actions that are legal, why do I need to be protected from someone legally carrying? This is absurd. The legal system often uses the word "reasonable"....as in "reasonable persons". No "reasonable" person would ask to be protected from something that is completely legal.

My simplistic analysis does not consider the terms in the second amendment that may be subject to interpretation: "well regulated," "militia," "security" and "free." However, several of these were considered and addressed by the Supreme Court in Heller.

 

The interpretation is established in other statutes. A well regulated militia... is separated from the right of the people by a comma. The comma denotes a separation of elemnets or thoughts in the sentence. The militia in the 2A has nothing to do with the right of the people bearing arms.

 

The militia spoken of in the 2A is not the National Guard as many claim. The National Guard is established in Article 1 Section 8. The militia referred to in the 2A is codified in 10USC311.

My simplistic analysis does not consider the terms in the second amendment that may be subject to interpretation: "well regulated," "militia," "security" and "free." However, several of these were considered and addressed by the Supreme Court in Heller.

 

The interpretation is established in other statutes. A well regulated militia... is separated from the right of the people by a comma. The comma denotes a separation of elemnets or thoughts in the sentence. The militia in the 2A has nothing to do with the right of the people bearing arms.

 

The militia spoken of in the 2A is not the National Guard as many claim. The National Guard is established in Article 1 Section 8. The militia referred to in the 2A is codified in 10USC311.

 

 

It is my impression that as codified militia is an able bodied man.

No where else in the "Bill of rights" is a right enumerated to be reserved to the government, how these anti-2a people rationalize that one is beyond me. Furthermore, when the amendments were written, it was common to have a preamble.

It is my impression that as codified militia is an able bodied man.

 

The militia, or the adult male population at the time in which the colonies had militia laws that required every man between the ages of 16 and 60 to procure their own firearms and ammunition to be kept for emergencies.