Considering the 2nd Amendment in Oregon
Topic: Constitution
Once again in Oregon the debate over gun legislation looms as new laws are put before congress by Senator Burdick. Advocates, both for and against strict gun legislation, issue an unending supply of rhetoric to support their respective causes. But let’s recall the root of our right to bear arms. The second amendment 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.”

Most people forget the first half of the sentence, I’ll get to that later. The second half states clearly; “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

First, the very sentence itself assumes that the people already have an inherent natural right to keep and bear arms that precedes the founding document. But let’s look more closely.

To keep, in this context, clearly means to own or posses, and to bear means “to physically carry” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, ? 1996).

To infringe is defined as “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, ? 1996).

Thus you could rewrite the second half of the sentence: the right of the people to own and physically carry Arms, shall not be encroached upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

So clearly the right for me to carry a gun around cannot be encroached upon in a way that violates the law. But it also cannot be encroached upon in a way that violates my rights. The conjunction “or” logically determines that in a statement “X or Y,” either X or Y must be true for the statement to be true. Only if both X and Y are false is the statement also false.

Therefore the encroachment on a person X’s right to bear arms can neither violate law, nor can it violate another person Y’s natural and assumed right to keep and bear arms. What this means is that most current gun legislation is unconstitutional. The government really only has the right to restrict gun ownership of specific individual persons on a case by case basis; and still may do so only in accordance with the law.

The most important and most widely ignored portion of the second amendment is the first part: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” here is the essence of the second amendment. The right to bear arms is not to protect the rights of legions of sportsman hunters; it is to protect the right of the people and the states to form militias for their protection and self-defense. Why did the founding fathers feel it necessary to explicitly guaranty this right? As a final check and balance by the people against the potential tyranny of their government.

When one comprehends the true importance of the second amendment, it becomes clear what Thomas Jefferson meant by his remark: “The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”