My brother spent over 20 years in the military before retiring as an 18 Bravo (Weapons Sergeant) in the Army Special Forces. My son graduated from West Point and flies Army helicopters. I graduated from Marine Corps OCS almost forty years ago. Three of us have carried weapons professionally, under oath, in service to this country. So, when constitutional law professors explain what the Second Amendment's militia clause really means — and invariably conclude it means you don't have an individual right to own a firearm — I listen carefully. Then I disagree.

The argument runs like this: the Second Amendment's prefatory clause ('A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State') conditions the operative clause ('the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'). Therefore, the right belongs to the militia, not to individuals. Therefore, gun control is constitutional. It's a clean syllogism. It's also wrong, and the Supreme Court said so in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

In 1789, when Madison proposed the amendment, there was no standing army to speak of. The Founders were deeply suspicious of one. Permanent professional armies were how European monarchs kept domestic populations in line, and the men who had just fought a war against the Crown understood that better than anyone alive. Their solution was the militia: not a government-controlled force, but the body of the people — able-bodied male citizens who brought their own arms to muster,........

© Townhall