My Second Amendment "Constitutional originalist" version, with explanation. [View all]

Informed voters know that, in order to arrive at his interpretation of the real meaning of the Second Amendment, Antonin Scalia, the self-described Constitutional originalist who served on the SCOTUS, decided to literally dismiss half of the actual wording of the Amendment as, in his words, “merely prefatory”.

In that spirit, I have decided to turn my own Constitutional originalist lens on the Amendment, and explain what the founders really intended. Mine has the added attraction of being in line with their actual thinking, and their actions in forming the government and additional Agencies.

First, the unredacted Amendment reads:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

First, it is obvious that the first 2 clauses, “A well-regulated militia”, are the primary clauses. All of the rest of the Amendment explains those clauses. So, following the example of Antonin Scalia, I decided to dismiss the next two clauses as being merely referential to the primary clause, and not necessary in any interpretation of the Amendment.

Given that the founders refused to establish a standing army, instead stating that the new nation would rely on an organized militia for security and protection, the Amendment should read:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, will forthwith be established.


This version is in keeping with the intent of the founders, and eliminates any idea that everyone who feels the “need” for a weapon should have access to one.