Twenty-seven words. That's the full text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It 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.
Until today, the U.S. Supreme Court has not made a formal announcement on whether this sentence means individuals have a right to own guns.
Here's the problem: The U.S. Constitution grants rights (or powers) to three groups: the Federal Government (e.g. the power to tax); the States (e.g. the power to police its citizens); or the People (e.g. the right to free speech). The rights mentioned in the Second Amendment do not pertain to the Federal Government. So, the question is, does the right to keep and bear arms apply directly to the People (to an individual) or to the States? How you answer this question ultimately determines whether or not you believe in an individual's right to own a gun.
Position 1: It's the State's Right
This position holds that the right to keep and bear arms is given to the States, or to the people collectively as members of a State. This right is granted to the States for the purpose of protecting and serving the State as members of an armed militia. In other words, an Individual is granted the right to carry a gun only if he is serving the State as a member of the militia.
Consequently, there is no individual right to keep and bear arms given directly to the people. Sorry, but James (Madison), Alexander (Hamilton) and the rest of the Founding Fathers just didn't trust you with that musket!
Position 2: It's My (Individual) Right
This position maintains that the right to keep and bear arms is given directly to the people in order to protect both the People's interests and the State's. Supporters of this position agree that one component of protecting the people's interests is to defend the State against invasion, but they contend that the right also extends to protecting personal interests such as property or family. Consequently, the right to bear arms is given directly to the People and not to the States.
There are persuasive arguments on both sides. One way to see the differences is to recognize that you can get the answer you want by simply emphasizing one part of the Amendment.
If you focus on the beginning two phrases--"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"--you can interpret the Amendment as talking about militias and the importance they play within the States. Based on that, you can minimize the People's rights and make the focus of the Amendment on militias and the States. Under this interpretation, the next phrase should have been written as; "the right of the people (of a State) to keep and bear arms." So, it's the State's right.
If you focus on the third phrase--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"--you can interpret the Amendment's reference to militia and the States as simply setting up the important part of the Amendment, namely, the right of the People. No need to revise the language, just ignore the preamble. It's the People's rights, plain and simple. Is one wrong or more right then the other?
Today, the Court determined that for the purposes of self-defense and hunting the Constitution specifically protects an individual's right to own a gun.
What's the Militia?
The Constitution commands that States are required to train and maintain a militia to "uphold the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." In those days, the militia--men between the ages of 16 and 60--took the place of a national army. The Founding Fathers intentionally gave the States the right to have a militia, as opposed to creating a Federal army, as a way for the people to protect their State against the Federal Government. But over time the militia was replaced by city, state and federal law enforcement, and today the only militia recognized by the federal courts are the U.S. National Guard and the Naval Militia.
All material taken from "Why We'll Win" (www.whywellwin.com)