Dear Editor:

The only amendment to the Constitution written with its own preamble is the Second: “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 preamble sets down the purpose of the amendment, and the only purpose enacted is contained in the text itself. This purpose, as explained by Lawrence Tribe in his book, “On Reading the Constitution,” “most plausibly may be read to preserve a power of the state militias against abolition by the federal government, not the asserted right of individuals to possess all manner of lethal weapons.” 

This reading is grounded in the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the principal Second Amendment case, United States v. Miller (1939), which held that the Second Amendment protected the citizen’s right to own firearms that were ordinary militia equipment, but not, as in Miller’s case, an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. The analogous case today would likely involve an assault weapon instead of a sawed-off shotgun, but the reasoning should be the same. Similar well-considered restrictions on criminal possession, certain registration schemes, and specific prohibitions regarding age and the mentally ill, are certainly within Constitutional bounds and are not repugnant to the purpose of the Second Amendment. 

Two subsequent Supreme Court decisions affirming a right to own handguns in Washington, D. C. (2008), and Chicago (2010) do not substantially challenge this principle. They leave open the question of how stringent such regulations may be without implicating the Second Amendment, or barring weapons regulations entirely. That question is a good one, perhaps the best one, to focus on in our ensuing debate.

David Nyberg
West Boothbay Harbor
and Bath