Gun rights not just about individuals

What are the basic Second Amendment “rights?”

First: The rights of a community to protect itself.

“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.”

In 1790, when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified, an armed militia of ordinary citizens was the only protection for a community, especially on the frontier. There was no standing army. No National Guard. The Continental Army had been disbanded. In Article 46 of the Federalist Papers, James Madison, who authored the Bill of Rights, explained that the purpose of such a militia was the protection of the community from both internal and external threats. He defined a “well-regulated militia” as “citizens with arms in their hands … united and conducted by governments (state and local) possessing their affections and confidence.” Until 2008 this was the judicial understanding of “Second Amendment rights.”

Second: The rights of an individual to have a loaded, ready weapon to protect the home.

In the landmark 2008 ruling, Heller vs. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court extended the right of the community to protect itself to the right of individuals to have a weapon to protect their home. Writing for the majority, Judge Antonin Scalia stated: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

However, he also started, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. … Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms … ”

Third: The right of the states to regulate the use of firearms also constitutes a right.

According to Heller vs. District of Columbia, the judicial understanding of the Second Amendment rights clearly implied the “right” and obligation of state governments to protect their communities from improper use of firearms. These are facts.

We need to agree that the original intent of the Second Amendment and Heller vs. District of Columbia was and still is the “security” and protection of home and community.

We need to agree that security and protection also means that their state governments recognize and act on their original “right” and obligation to protect their citizens from the unregulated use and abuse of firearms. There must be a balance between individual rights and right of a community to defend itself. Until then, there will be no peace or compromise in this cultural war over firearms regulation. And this increasingly insane epidemic of gun violence will continue unabated.

GEORGE BENJAMIN Siloam Springs