advertisement

Second Amendment intent hasn't changed

In his Dec. 14 letter, Theodore Utchen writes that since the Second Amendment referred to the need of the militia to be called up from the populace, it is no longer relevant. He goes on to say the Supreme Court should "declare" that the Second Amendment is void.

First, the Supreme Court has no authority to declare void any portion of the Constitution whatsoever. Such a suggestion is shocking and frankly quite alarming, especially coming from such a well-spoken person as Mr. Utchen.

Second, Mr. Utchen seems unaware of some of the history behind the Second Amendment. There isn't enough space here for the full history, but suffice to say the framers of the Constitution were heavily influenced by the Stuart Period of British history - a period marked by repeated struggle over where the power of governance lie - with the king, the parliament, or the people.

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 contained a provision for the individual keeping of arms specifically because the people's own militia had attempted to disarm them.

Jumping ahead, the notion of an individual right to keep and bear arms as a deterrence to despotism was agreed to with near unanimity by both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Simply reading the writings of the time proves this.

It is well documented that the intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the citizens from the government. It is just as relevant today as it was when it was ratified.

Tyler Benjamin

Woodridge

Article Comments
Guidelines: Keep it civil and on topic; no profanity, vulgarity, slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. If a comment violates these standards or our terms of service, click the "flag" link in the lower-right corner of the comment box. To find our more, read our FAQ.