Yes. All derive from and are attendant to natural rights, as opposed...
...to legal rights. At least that's my understanding, but I don't claim to be an expert on the subject.
The 2A could not have been referring to any legal or statutory right.
Blackstone identifies the source of the right to keep and bear arms as natural law in his commentary on the English Bill of Rights:
"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
In any event, not looking for an argument. Just responding to the claim that the 2A "empowered" the states to keep militias.
Of course none of this forecloses reasonable discussion on the definition of the limits of the right. But it seems to me the focus should be on the word "arms" rather than on "militia" or "people."
|
(
In response to this post by WahooRQ)
Posted: 06/15/2017 at 06:36AM