Voice of the People: Justice Barrett’s Second Amendment dilemma – Kankakee Daily Journal

In some 229 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the framers' intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barretts dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.

I will relate further by demonstration, my understanding of the intent of the framers using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, 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.

Merriam Webster defines militia as "a body of citizens organized for military service; a whole body of able-bodied citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

If, as some may argue, the Second Amendments militia meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe one's right as a private individual is not as a militia but as a person. (The individual personality of a human being: self)

The Article of Confederation lists 11 references to person/s. The Constitution lists person or persons 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a person his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.

Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to person is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun person/s as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual persons right to bear arms as a person?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, textualism approach having zero reference to person/s. Justice Barretts view only recognizes person/s in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of person/s, mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.

Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barretts judgment in question.

In the entire U.S. Constitution militia is mentioned five times. In these references there is no mention of person or persons. One reference to people in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.

Now comes the word shall mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. Merriam Webster. Shall as ought to, must .. will have to; MUST; will be able to; used in laws; regulates or directives to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the near future.

And interestingly, the word shall appears in the Second Amendment. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.

[S]hall not be infringed. Adding another word infringed to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Merriam Webster. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another; defeat, frustrate, encroach.

The condition Infringe has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall not infringe or encroach on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject Militia.

Finally, clarifying ..the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

Merriam Webster. People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by common interest. 2. human beings, persons.

In closing, I am not against guns, everybody has them. Im against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.

Link:
Voice of the People: Justice Barrett's Second Amendment dilemma - Kankakee Daily Journal