Second Amendment

Contextualism

People who favor 'original intent' of framers vis-a-vis constitutional interpretation often cite to what they think was the context of any given constitutional phrase or amendment to extract it's meaning now. Some tension in constitutional interpretation has arisen with the juxtaposition of those who believe that it is a living breathing document that evolves in meaning with the time and society begging the interpretation at the moment. Hence, we construe terms like 'equality' in the context of modern equality in which slavery is abolished, and women have suffrage, something that was not the case at the founding. We don't interpret 'equality' in the eyes of exclusively slave-holding male landowners any more. To make a gross oversimplification, those who tend to like 'original intent' tend to veer on the 'conservative' side of the political spectrum.

So lets look at the context of the Second Amendment for arguments sake. From 1754-1763 what we now think of as American colonies were in a territorial war called the French and Indian War, known in Europe as the Seven Years War (the American theatre being only one part) and in Canada known as La Guere de la Conquete in which native Americans allied themselves with the French staking a claim to "New France" that went from Canada/Montreal-Quebec down through the States East and at times centered in an area of convergence over the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers (both Native American names) in what we now know as Pittsburgh (so called after William Pitt was given the land after defeat of French forces by the British.)

Native Americans and French fought together against English colonists and British troops working with them and enscripting them. Then in 1776 we know what happened. There was another war- of independence from the British- by the colonists who years earlier previously fought with them to fend off the French and Native Americans/Indians.

The Constitutional convention took place at a time where borders were being carefully carved drawn and not yet solidified by history of legislative prerogative. Citizen militias existed and rallied together to win the war of Independence.

In 1803 Napoleon lost his shirt fighting in the colony we now know as Haiti and needed to retool his troops and get funds-so he sold the Louisiana Purchase to Thomas Jefferson.

Then in 1812, a mere 36 years after the War of Independence from the British- less than one generation later- the British tried again to take back the colonies in the War of 1812. The White House was burned. The British wanted their colonies back.

The Second Amendment arose in conjunction with a historical situation in which the European power colonizers were playing chess with American holdings for a period of time when our borders were unstable, native americans were still slaughtering settlers and the Rule of Law was virtually unenforceable during warring times and as against native americans who were in perpetual war against settlers.

NONE of these confluent circumstances currently exist.

We are the world's major superpower. We have an enforceable Rule of Law, and well established criminal justice codes and courts throughout all the lands of the territories comprised now of these United States. We have no need to have citizen militias because we have the world's best military power of a centralized Federally run Military system.

When looking at Gun Laws, it is critical to understand what the Second Amendment sought to protect and what it did not seek to protect. It NEVER sought to protect criminal or pathological conduct, it did not seek to protect individual personal vigilanteeism or rogue undisciplined nutty
expressions of political dissent. It was established to protect Americans from colonizers and from
the slaughter of perpetually warring native americans.

Gun Law MUST be created sufficient to penalize anyone carrying weapons for person destructive uses not consistent with the Second Amendment purposes- which largely no longer exist.