[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

At the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, the use of firearms in hunting was far more than a sport. In the West, it was the main source of meat. A rifle was as much a part of the frontiersman’s kit as an axe. State militias, not a standing army, served the nascent nation’s security (West Point was established later, in 1802). But states provided training, not firearms.

As such, it is ridiculous to read the Second Amendment as saying only militia’s have the ‘right to keep and bear arms.

The only reason to question this view is an obscure and confusing 1939 US Supreme Court seemed to suggest something different, that perhaps only when serving in a militia did Americans have the right to “keep and bear arms”.

This silly argument has been used as the bugaboo of groups like the N.R.A. for years – as follows: If the right to own a gun is only collective, limited to militias, then gun control laws could be passed that grab your gun. In fact, every gun control law passed is just a step in the direction of confiscation. So (to twist logic) every gun control law must be resisted to avoid confiscation. Oh, and send us a lot of money for that fight.