Interpretations on the Second Amendment
...ment since the number of armed citizens would far outnumber the standing army. However, this supports the idea that the amendment does not protect the individual’s right to possess firearms. A large number of the original thirteen states’ constitutions did not convey the right as being to the individual. But DeRosa mentions that this did not mean that it was enforced in that way. Having a firearm was central to survival for the people of the time and was therefore “ensured by custom” (DeRosa 54). This made the amendment obvious and greatly needed at that time in our history, but it is far less understandable today. The Second Amendment is often seen as a “relic” (DeRosa 57). Yet, as DeRosa continues, it is a significant political issue. There have been many landmark cases relating to the amendment, the first being United States vs. Cruishank Et Al in 1876 which specifically ruled that citizens of African descent are guaranteed their basic rights. Another is Presser vs. Illinois in 1886 that ruled, “A state may not disarm its inhabitants to the point where it obstructs the Congress’s ability to utilize the state militia for national objectives” (DeRosa 58). DeRosa concludes that those in favor of gun control “dismiss the thought of [an] armed confrontation between the people and their national government” (DeRosa 62). She continues saying that the Constitution was framed under the thought that “governments are inherently oppressive” and have to be restricted (DeRosa 62). DeRosa seems to be saying that the reason for the Second Amendment was created not to protect the citizenry from external attack, but an attack from the citizenry’s own government. The Congressional Report first notes that the debate over whether the Federal Government could keep a standing army was a good idea or not. The compromise was made that the government was allowed a standing army as long as the citizens were allowed the possession and use of firearms. He goes on to quote drafts for the wording of the amendment, as well as for State constitutions in which some specifically protect the right to the individual. For example, the Pennsylvanian Constitution states “…the people have the right for the defense of themselves, their state, or the United States, and for killing game, and no law shall be enacted for disarming the people…” (Featherstone 88). Featherstone also details many of the same Judicial Rulings mentioned by DeRosa. Featherstone goes on to connect the amendment to the “individual’s absolute and inalienable ...