One of the most controversial parts of the United States Constitution is the second amendment, which provides for a right to bear arms and a well-organized militia. Those clauses are joined together in a comma. Depending on your political predilication, your either likely to believe that this means that you have a right to bear arms or that you only have a right to bear arms as part of a well-organized militia.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on which of these is a correct interpretation, under the liberal doctrine of selective incorporation. The liberal justices who dominated the court have punted this question to lower courts, and all together avoided the question of whether or not the constitution gives a protected right, within reason, to own firearms. But certainly many Americans and their legislators have made up their minds and fought excessive restrictions on firearm ownership.

You have to question why the founding fathers would even mention the right to own firearms as part of a well-organized militia. Isn’t a militia by definition an armed force? It’s hard to argue that the founding fathers could have believed a well-organized militia could exist without a guns and other lethal weapons. No reasonable person would construe a militia to be a social club where grannies got together and discussed politics in a scholarly fashion. It’s likely that the intent was to protect the right to bear arms in a meaningful way.

The right to own firearms can’t be taken lightly for sure. They are a deadly weapon and can kill. If enough people get their hands on firearms, band together, it’s quite possible that they could take on and over throw a government – particularly in the revolutionary era when the federal government lacked the massive standing armies and tightly allied state militias, under the contract of the federal government. You do not want the wrong people bearing arms.

At the same time, do you want to the populace at large the ability to defend itself from other dangerous people, or to have at some level, the ability to defend itself from a foreign invader? Shouldn’t people have a basic right to self-protection and own a firearm? Doesn’t the right to own firearms put a check, a bit a limited check on government? There is a case for allowing firearm ownership at least for a law-abiding population.

The first amendment provides for freedom of expression. That provision was weakly enforced for the first two centuries of our country. It was not until the 20th century with the doctrine of selective incorporation was it applied to the states. The Supreme Court came up with a series of standards in protection of the first amendment. The first was one that allowed for speech except in cases it caused a clear and present danger. The more permissive standard adopted in the sixties, allowed all speech except that was a direct incitement to violence.

If the conservative majority holds control of the court, it’s likely that the right to be bear arms will be similarly enshrined. States might be prohibited from regulating firearm sales and ownership, except when their sale or ownership poses a clear and present danger to the public well being. A violent criminal or those who immediately threaten a violent act should be prevented from owning a firearm, until they get treated for their illness. Successful treatment for mental illness or criminal behavior, would be enabler for ownership once again of a firearm. This type of doctrine would strike down major gun control measures, and force states to re-think how they regulate firearms.

There is little question that firearms are the scapegoat of all that’s wrong with society. It is claimed the black problem, is that they have access to firearms. It is claimed that our criminal justice and mental hygiene system’s corrective institutions is again the fault of easy access to firearms. There also is little question that the court is becoming more conservative and likely to adopt a doctrine regarding the second amendment that will force people to rethink gun control and crime prevention as a society.