A preamble in Second Amendment?

Terry E Peele, Las Vegas

Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008 | 2:03 a.m.

I recently heard a gun advocate explain the Second Amendment in the following manner. I paraphrase: The first part of the amendment, the part that reads, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” is a preamble to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

While I don’t embrace the concept of its being a preamble, I am willing to view it from that aspect for the sake of debate. First, we must establish just what a preamble is. The most commonly accepted definition of the word is “an introduction.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines it, in its first definition, as follows: “A preliminary statement, especially the introduction of a formal document that explains its purpose.”

If the first part of the Second Amendment is a preamble, then that means it explains the purpose of the second part. That means the purpose of the people’s right to “keep and bear arms” is to maintain a well-regulated militia in order to secure a free state. The states, then, are burdened with the responsibility of determining what is necessary to maintain a well-regulated militia.

I’ve never viewed the Second Amendment as being two separate parts. I have always thought of it as an assurance to the 13 states of their right to protect their federalist standing from the central government. Why the states have chosen to abandon the civilian army (militia) in favor of the National Guard which I view as part of the standing army is a mystery.

If this session of the Supreme Court determines that the Second Amendment has a preamble, then that would vindicate the decision rendered in 1939 in United States v. Miller.