Our view: Semantics of freedom

Dothan Eagle editorial
Published: July 2, 2008

Credited with more than 600,000 words (depending on the source), the English language is so voluminous that clarity and precision should not be a problem.

How, then, can the meaning of a 27-word passage remain in dispute for 217 years?

In a contentious 5-4 ruling last week, the U.S. Supreme Court majority may expect to have the final say on the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the infamous “right to bear arms” amendment.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the view that the Second Amendment was bound to the context of “well regulated militia” cited in the passage. Interpretation can be boiled down to simple semantics. Scalia characterizes the first 14 words as “prefatory statement of purpose” that should not be construed as a limitation of the “operative clause”: “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Scalia’s majority opinion, supported by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., is a well-reasoned interpretation of the intent of the founders. The forefathers certainly would not have forgotten how the British tried to disarm the people, Scalia wrote, concluding that the militia clause would have been inserted to “announce the purpose for which the right was codified. The minority vehemently disagreed, saying the majority position was “simply wrong,” citing the high court’s last consideration of the Second Amendment almost 70 years ago in United States vs. Miller, which has long been perceived as a rejection of the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.

After 217 years, clarification of the amendment and a validation of an individual’s right to possess firearms for the protection of “hearth and home” is welcome news.

However, a challenge is not out of the question. In fact, it’s virtually guaranteed.