|
||||||
|
The Second Amendment on Trial
By Laura Knoy on Tuesday, March 18, 2008.
For the first time in decades the US Supreme Court has the chance to define once and for all “the right to bear arms”. The case stems from a controversial ban on guns in D.C., which has made its way through court after court. And now, groups on both sides of the gun issue eagerly await the Justices’ ruling expected in June.
Guests
- Buzz Scherr, Professor at Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord
- Richard Feldman, President of MLS Communication, a former lobbyist for the National Rifle Association and author of "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist"
- Jon Lowy, Senior Attorney for the "Legal Action Project" at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Comments (1)
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Twittercomments
All comments are moderated before appearing on the site. Comments must adhere to the NHPR.org comment guidelines and terms of use.
Laura --
I just heard your "teaser" for the discussion this morning. Good topic and certainly current with the Supreme Court's decision to consider a ruling -- but I take some expeption to your definition of militia ("National Guard or the army"). According to my understanding [and the majority of entries in my online dicitonary (Dictionary.com)], the term militia refers specifically to a non-professional citizen soldier.
I think as we debate the intent of the Framers and its application to our individual and corporate rights today, it is important for us to believe that they spent time and effort trying to be precise -- and that the words they used were not casually chosen.
It seems most likely to me that they were using the meaning first recorded in 1696 and referenced in the online dictionary mentioned above with the following 1777 quotation "the whole body of men declared amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not."
Thanks for your terrific forum. I love it!