Second Amendment no longer relevant

In the Dec. 8 Daily Herald we learn that the U.S. Supreme Court has in effect upheld a ban on assault weapons, apparently permitting individuals to keep other weapons for self-defense, and that this right is protected by the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

If one studies the history of the Second Amendment, we would learn that today the Second Amendment right to bear arms is no longer pertinent at all. Back when this country was founded, we needed a well-regulated militia to defend our country, and that militia consisted of gentlemen who lived in their homes but were summoned from time to time to come out and join in combat to protect our country.

But we did not have armories or forts back then where arms could be stored, so we declared in our constitution that a militia being necessary, the right of individual militia members to bear or keep arms in their homes was necessary.

And that's how that constitutional amendment came to be. But clearly, that isn't necessary anymore because we now have forts, camps, posts, national guards, armories where arms and weapons can be stored, and also we no longer have militia. So we no longer need that constitutional right to keep and bear arms that was written back when this country was first founded.

Accordingly, I think the Supreme Court should declare that the Second Amendment is no longer relevant, and that today there is no constitutional right for individuals to keep and bear arms. Of course, our legislatures can enact laws providing such rights in each state if they wish, but that will not rise to the level of a constitutional right.

Theodore M. Utchen

Wheaton