Heller as an Example of Original Understanding

Amendment II

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.

Notice that both the majority opinion and the principle dissent in Heller purport to be applying original understanding in interpreting the Second Amendment. Notice that the majority specifically held that "In interpreting this text [the Second Amendment], we are guided by the principle that '[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.'" In other words, the interpretation to be searched for is the meaning that would have been understood by "ordinary citizens in the founding generation." (Heller majority opinion, 128 S. Ct. at 2788, edited from casebook).

Notice that the competing sides most clearly differ on the relationship between the prefatory clause ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") and the operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed").

How does Justice Scalia interpret this issue? (See p. 699-700)

How about Justice Stevens? (p.704-705)

Is there a difference between the Second Amendment as written and one that might provide:

"The right of certain people to keep and bear arms while serving in a well regulated militia shall not be infringed."

Which weapons are covered by the individual right to keep and bear arms? (see p. 709: those "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes").

Notice that the right is also subject to "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." p. 701).