The Washington Post has a front page story saying that the Second Amendment had always been construed to refer to a “collective” right to own firearms on the part of state militias until 2008 when the Supreme Court ruled that it refers to an “individual” right. This change in interpretation, the article contends, was because the NRA nefariously funded legal research that supported its novel position.
I think that argument is absurd. Read the gist of it after the jump. But then I’d like to discuss the “militia” part of the 2nd Amendment. Since the Constitution says that “a well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State,” shouldn’t we have a well regulated militia, as opposed to a standing army? [Read more…]