To the editor:
Samuel Brown's statement (May 7) concerning the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment is false. He has fabricated his own Supreme Court cases with which he supports his idea of a "well-regulated militia" as being a state prerogative, not an individual prerogative."In case after case," contrary to what Brown inferred, the Supreme Court has not addressed the issue of assault rifles and the Second Amendment - not once.
Brown clearly cannot support his anti-assault-rifle stance with holdings of the Supreme Court. Brown's citation of Edwards fails as well to enlighten me about the Supreme Court's purported interpretation of a well-regulated militia as being a state right and not an individual right. Period; end of your argument.
Let me explain a few things about the Second Amendment.
At the time that the amendment was included, every able-bodied man (likely women, too) were considered part of the "militia"; it was never considered to be some state-organized body of soldiers as the ACLU asserts today in its arguments opposing private gun ownership.
Suppose we conceded that the framers of the Constitution considered the Second Amendment a state right and not an individual right; then the whole purpose of the amendment is frustrated.
The declared purpose of the amendment is to protect the citizenry from oppressive governmental authority. If government is the exclusive benefactor of the Second Amendment, what purpose does it serve to include it in the Bill of Rights?
Amendments in the Bill of Rights are argued to be "individual" rights by liberal organizations such as the ACLU. They contend warmly that the Bill of Rights gives an individual (not state or communal) right to exercise whatever freedom is guaranteed by a particular amendment.
However, these liberals switch horses when it comes to the Second Amendment; here they suddenly say that the amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to possess a weapon; they claim this is a state right.
When faced with such an inconsistent interpretation, the liberals do just as they've always done: They bring out emotional arguments like Brown's apocalyptic "catalyst of death" statement, and hope that no one continues to press them on the meaning of the Constitution.
Andrew Bolton
J. Reuben Clark Law School
Provo