Senator Garrett reports that, "Both the Senate and House passed resolutions starting again the process for placing your right to keep and bear arms into the Iowa constitution." Senator Garrett's reference to "your right to keep and bear arms" is not to "your right" as declared in the Second Amendment. This fact becomes clear by answering two questions.

(8) comments

Michael R May

I always stand my ground on the Second Amendment. I therefore decline Mr. Bohlken's invitation to join his attack on the Second Amendment in which he fails to honor the single sentence Constitutional provision in its entirety and, in effect (and comically) , believes the second Amendment is too "liberal".

Bohlken1

I, of course, honored the first "militia" clause of the Second Amendment by stating the truth, i.e. that it is merely a statement of purpose which does not limit the right to the national guard or for militia purposes. It is May who dishonors the Second Amendment by failing to recognize that the right to keep and bear arms is a "right of the people" a clause appearing several times in the Bill of Rights which has always been interpreted to mean individuals, Despite the Second Amendment's admonition that the right "shall not be infringed" Mr. May undoubtedly favors many infringements on this precious constitutional individual right.

Michael R May

A question for Mr. Bohken: So you omit one “statement of purpose” of the Second Amendment from the Iowa Constitution to honor the Second Amendment's rights?
I see nothing in your reply to make me retreat from standing my ground on the single sentence Second Amendment as America's Founders wrote it. Further, I will never support your omission of another purpose of the Second Amendment "the security of a free State" because your omission opens the door to gun idolatry.

Bohlken1

Your April 4th comment on opening the door to "gun idolatry" has given me my laugh for the month, so desperately needed at tax time! I strongly suggest you read the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) in order to become informed on Second Amendment jurisprudence. Justice Scalia would have been surprised to find out that he opened the door to "gun idolatry".

Michael R May

The laugh is on your own opinion not Justice Scalia's opinion. Your advocacy of erasing half the words of the one sentence Second Amendment stripping it of purposes like "the security of the free State" opens the door wide to gun idolatry. I continue to stand my ground of the Second Amendment as written by America's Founders.

Bohlken1

With respect to your April 17th comment: Mr. May, I will light a candle for you at my Shrine of the Sacred Gun! LOL.

Michael R May

Thank you for your words that describe you core position on guns and explain your opposition to honoring all 27 words of the Second Amendment: Bohlken's "Shrine of the Sacred Gun!"

Bohlken1

The Second Amendment provides: “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 first "militia" clause is the prefatory clause, i.e. it states the purpose of the amendment. The second "right to keep and bear arms"clause is the operative clause, which sets forth the actual extent of the right involved.

As I pointed out in today's letter responding to Rep. Ourth's attempt to sabotage the Iowa right to keep and bear arms amendment, the Supreme Court found that there was an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment by only a one vote margin.

Mr. May, and other anti-gun advocates, want the "militia" prefatory clause included in the hopes that it may be used to restrict the right to bear arms only to National Guard members. Of course, as the Supreme Court's Heller decision pointed out, and consistent with the opinion of experts in English usage such as the late Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at USC and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus, the militia cause is merely a statement of purpose and in no way limits the right to keep and bear arms to the militia or for militia purposes or for the purpose of securing a free state. Sen. Julian Garrett, as an attorney, scholar, and true believer in the right to keep and bear arms, recognizes this and supported the Iowa amendment in order to prevent any such effort to destroy the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.