Editor,
Aimee Schafer, in common with most NRA supporters, is quick to cite part of the Second Amendment in her letter in the June 8 Daily Lobo. She says the amendment is clear, when in fact it is anything but. The full amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The exact intent of the framers has been debated endlessly, and the Supreme Court has often had to determine if a law fits the intent of the amendment. "Bear arms," in this context, seems to align with the concept of a militia - an armed force to defend the city, state or country. The term "bear arms" was used exclusively in this context in the 18th century. The concept of being "well-regulated" fits with the current interpretation that while a right may have been established in this amendment, it is not unbounded. The Supreme Court has generally found that while membership of a militia is not required for gun ownership, regulation of gun ownership is permitted. Does the Blair Holt measure violate the Second Amendment? On its face, such regulations that still allow ownership would appear to be constitutional, but most likely this is another measure that will have to be appealed to court to determine. What is clear is that the constant fear, uncertainty and doubt that the NRA manages to whip up around gun laws in this country, through its constant lobbying and media campaigns, is good for just one group: the NRA and the gun manufacturers it represents.
Danny Lee
UNM staff
