| I've always suspected that the militia portion of the 2nd Amendment had one purpose: James Madison had to keep George Mason and the other VA gentry happy. Without it, with a right to bear arms, there would still be criticism that the BoR ought to have given the militia a stress, just as VA's BoR had done. Think of it -- it's the one section of the BoR that has nothing to do with rights as such. If anything, it mandates that the government restrict liberties (force people to attend militia musters, render them liable to being called out, and subjecting them to court martials). It really doesn't fit into a BoR. Gene's observation of how Madison originally parcelled out the BoR as additions, in pocket part style, to the original Constitution bears this out. He attached the future 2nd amendment to the section of Article I containing general restrictions on Congressional power. The militia portion would have fit better as an addition to the Article I militia clause, but Madison didn't bother. The fact that ti's structured as encouragment/exhortation rather than as a command flows from the fact that it's the only clause in the BoR that is aimed at causing rather than restraining governmental action. It's easy to say Congress shall make no laws about something, much harder to specify what laws it should make on something else. And a full militia statute is a little long for a declaration of rights! So just keep it vague.
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
