The Second Amendment states: "A wellregulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In "Gun rights belong to citizens, not state" (May 21), Eugene Volokh interprets this to mean we all have a right to bear arms.

When the Bill of Rights was being written, the 13 states had two opposite fears: that a too powerful national government and professional military would become as oppressive as the British monarchy once was; and that the new military would be too weak to defend against foreign invasion or internal insurrection.

The Constitution already gave Congress the option, but not the obligation, to arm the broad-based, nonprofessional citizen militia. Therefore, the Second Amendment guaranteed that, regardless of the action or inaction of Congress, the militia could remain armed.

So does the Second Amendment's right to bear arms extend to all people or only to members of the militia? Consider two laws from around that time whose sentence structure is similar to the Second Amendment's. "That retrospective laws ... are oppressive, unjust, and incompatible with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto law shall ever be made." "Economy being a most essential virtue ... no pension shall be granted but in consideration for actual services ..."

These and dozens of similar examples follow one of two patterns. Most often the second clause is equal in scope to the first (retrospective and ex post facto laws are the same thing). And occasionally the second clause is narrower and more specific than the first (economy is a general virtue, while a sound pension policy is a specific example of that virtue).

So it is consistent with both the political context and the writings of that era to conclude that "people" referred only to members of the well-regulated militia.

Chris Norlin
Administrative Specialist
Capital Programs