In response to Mr. Van Brocklin’s opinion, I would like to make three statements. First of all, the militia was formed for the purpose of a state’s defense from enemies, be they foreign or national. Professor Laurence Tribe, author of American Constitutional Law, indicates of the Second Amendment in regards to the militia: “The central concern of [its] framers was to prevent such federal interferences with the state militia as would permit the establishment of a standing national army and the consequent destruction of local autonomy.”

Supporters of a “collective” rather than an “individualists” interpretation include the American Bar Association, American Civil Liberties Union, Justice Policy Institute, Manhattan Project II, National Association of Police Organizations, War and Peace Foundation and the list continues. As well as a handful of U.S.’s Supreme Court cases.

One such case, Presser vs. Illinois, states that the Second Amendment only protects members of a state militia against disarmament by the federal government. There is no individual right that can be claimed independent of state militia law. United States vs. Cruikshank states that the only rights protected by the national government were those necessary for participation in that government: “The right to petition Congress would be such a right, but a person must look to his state government for protection of similar rights in other situations.” The right specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.”

As Roy G.Weatherup, author of “Standing Armies And Armed Citizens: A Historical Analysis of The Second Amendment,” part of the 1982 Senate Report, stated: “Neither in the Philadelphia Convention, in the writings of the pamphleteers, in the newspapers, in the convention debates, nor in Congress was there any reference to hunting, target shooting, dueling, personal self-defense or any other subject that would indicate an individual right to have guns. Every reference to the right to bear arms was in connection with military service. Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that the collectivist view of the Second Amendment rather than the individualist interpretation is supported by history.”

Last of all I would like to state Mr. Van Brocklin was correct. The Constitution does define our government. However, the amendments do not define our freedoms. Our freedoms define those amendments. The Bill of Rights is there to protect each pre-existing freedom. The Constitution is a “living document.” It is always changing. Why does it seem that people are willing to maintain certain parts of the Constitution, without change while others are amended? Shouldn’t we maintain the same standards for every article and amendment?

Jesus Estrada

Sophomore

Animal Ecology