Letter: Consider purpose of right to bear arms

Monday, March 19, 2007 | 7:22 a.m.

When will it ever be learned that the purpose of the Second Amendment is stated clearly, in plain and simple English, within the amendment itself: "the security of a free State?" The amendment also states what is necessary to maintain a free state: "A well regulated Militia." A militia, different from a standing or professional army, requires its members to provide their own arms. As such, the amendment states that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A study of history will show that at the time of ratification of the Constitution, Anti-Federalists believed individuals were citizens of their respective states before they were citizens of the United States. The Anti-Federalists were promised that the individual states would be permitted to maintain their militias. In 1791 the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were ratified and became known as the Bill of Rights.

Most of the states at that time had statutes that required all able-bodied men to arm themselves and serve in their respective militias. These statutes specified the type of arms each of these men were to provide. In 1939 a federal district court (Untied States v. Miller) ruled that the National Firearms Act of 1934 had usurped the rights of states to establish and maintain a well-regulated militia.

While one may rightfully argue that the Second Amendment is an individual right, the amendment clearly states that individual right is designed for a specific purpose: "the security of a free State." Being able to arm one's self for self protection just happens to be a byproduct of that purpose.

Terry E. Peele, Las Vegas