Guns: Let's see proof of militia membership

In all of the acrimonious debate about Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, why is it that we never hear any discussion of the first words of the Second Amendment?

Those key words state the only named purpose of the right: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”

It seems clear enough to me that any conservative, “originalist” understanding of these words must mean that citizens who are enrolled under the discipline of “a well regulated” organized state militia shall not have this right “infringed.” But what about those who are not owning and bearing arms under such tight discipline of their use?

I would hope that a federal law would require anyone who wishes to purchase anything more than a single-shot sports hunting firearm must show that they are a member in good standing of a “well regulated militia.” Is anybody else ready to take this stand?

This story was originally published March 7, 2018 at 5:18 PM with the headline "Guns: Let's see proof of militia membership."