Bobby Scott: “once again we find ourselves here debating the scope of the Second Amendment and whether its purpose is to protect the…”

“once again we find ourselves here debating the scope of the Second Amendment and whether its purpose is to protect the sanctity of state militias or provide a fundamental right to individuals, irrespective of their relationship to state militias, to possess firearms. While this bill cites in its findings that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, there has been a definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. In United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court wrote in 1939 that the ``obvious purpose'' of the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment was ``to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness'' of state militias and that the guarantee of that right ``must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.'' This language was a clear indication that the Second Amendment right to ``bear arms'' guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Mr. Speaker, for more than sixty years following the Supreme Court's decision in Miller, there was little judicial debate regarding the scope of the Second amendment. In fact, virtually every federal appeals court has decided this issue and only one, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, has endorsed the individual rights view.…”