Share
Commentary

Leftist Says 'Well-Regulated Militia' Asserts Gun Control: Supreme Court Ruling Demolishes Argument

Share

Democratic Arizona Secretary of State candidate Adrian Fontes wrongly argued this week that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the individual right to keep and bear arms.

In fact, the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued convincingly in his majority opinion in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller that it does just that.

Fontes — whose claim to fame is overseeing the controversial 2020 general election as county recorder in Maricopa County — offered in a video posted this week the same argument that the court rejected in Heller.

He pointed to the text of the amendment, which 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.”

Fontes stated the first clause, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” sets the parameters for the right.

Trending:
Days Before Primary, Liz Cheney's Democrat Pal Throws an Anchor Around Her Neck

He noted that the Constitution also grants Congress the right to raise a militia to defend the nation, and the Second Amendment should be understood in that context.

“Congress provides the rules for the militia. Congress provides the arms for the militia. Congress calls up the militia,” Fontes said.

Do you believe gun ownership is an individual right?

So this fact taken together together with the opening language of the Second Amendment means the federal government possesses the overriding authority to determine who can own a gun. Right?

Wrong!

Scalia made a clear distinction between the “prefatory clause” of the Second Amendment — the first part — and the operative clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

“The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a ‘right of the people,'” he highlighted in Heller.

Scalia pointed out that the Bill of Rights uses that same language two other times: the First Amendment’s right to peaceably assemble to petition their government for redress and the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against searches and seizures by the government without a warrant.

Related:
Researcher Alleges FBI Seriously Undercounts Armed Citizen Responses to Active Shootings, Real Number 3x Higher

“All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body,” Scalia explained.

The term “militia” in the prefatory clause is actually a subset of “the people.”

“Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as ‘the people,'” Scalia wrote.

He further expounded that the language “to keep and bear Arms” shows up in state constitutions of the era as a recognition of the natural right to self-defense.

“Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to ‘bear arms in defense of themselves and the state’ or ‘bear arms in defense of himself and the state,'” Scalia chronicled.

In fact the right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense dates back to the English common law.

Truthfully, the right to self-defense dates back to biblical times.

Scalia’s also dismantled Fontes’ argument that the federal Congress had the sole power to raise a militia.

Again the prefatory clause says: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”

Scalia wrote, “the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution.”

So Fontes was pretty much wrong across the board.

The Supreme Court has made it clear: the Second Amendment protects the people’s individual right to bear arms, and it has nothing to do with whether they are serving in a militia.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →



We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Tags:
, , , , , , , , , ,
Share
Randy DeSoto has written more than 2,000 articles for The Western Journal since he joined the company in 2015. He is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book "We Hold These Truths" and screenwriter of the political documentary "I Want Your Money."
Randy DeSoto is the senior staff writer for The Western Journal. He wrote and was the assistant producer of the documentary film "I Want Your Money" about the perils of Big Government, comparing the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Randy is the author of the book "We Hold These Truths," which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence at defining moments in our nation's history. He has been published in several political sites and newspapers.

Randy graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point with a BS in political science and Regent University School of Law with a juris doctorate.
Birthplace
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Nationality
American
Honors/Awards
Graduated dean's list from West Point
Education
United States Military Academy at West Point, Regent University School of Law
Books Written
We Hold These Truths
Professional Memberships
Virginia and Pennsylvania state bars
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
Languages Spoken
English
Topics of Expertise
Politics, Entertainment, Faith




Conversation