Overturn DC vs. Heller, Not the Second Amendment

In the wake of the Parkland shooting, there have been many calls to repeal the Second Amendment. This is completely unnecessary, as the Second Amendment itself reads:

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 key phrases are "well regulated Militia," a "free State" and "the people." It's clear from context that "the people" are the Militia of the State, not an individual person. Furthermore, if you scan the Constitution for the word "Militia," you'll find these references that describe the powers that the President and the federal Congress have over the militias:

The Congress shall have the power to ...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

and

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. 

and

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 

From these references it's clear that the Congress is responsible for arming, disciplining and training the Militia, i.e., the people armed by Second Amendment. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States. The Militia in these times is the National Guard.

All this means that the federal government has the right and responsibility to regulate the Arms and discipline the people in the Militia who keep and bear those Arms.

Speculation about what the Founding Fathers "really meant" or what English common law said about owning arms should irrelevant to strict conservative constructionists who claim to abide by the letter of the Constitution.

Even if you don't agree that one needs to be a member of the National Guard to keep Arms (i.e., we're all citizen soldiers), it's clear that the Constitution indicates that the President and Congress have the right to regulate Arms and impose training and discipline on people who keep and bear arms. If you've got a gun, you've got to obey the laws imposed by the Congress and enforced by the President.

Which means Congress can pass laws to regulate or ban dangerous weapons in civilian hands -- AR-15s, silencers, machine guns, hand grenades, and kevlar vests. Congress can discipline those who bear Arms by requiring licensing and training, or barring incompetent or unstable individuals from keeping Arms.

Furthermore, since the Second Amendment is concerned with the security of a free State, the States should be able regulate Arms as they see fit. The Second Amendment is about states' rights, after all. If States want tighter gun laws than the Congress imposes, they should be able to have them, just as they can have tighter laws for automobiles, gambling, pollution regulation, health care and most anything else.

This was the view of Constitutional scholars -- and even the NRA -- for two centuries. And then, some time in the 1970s, the NRA went off their rockers and began clamoring for an unlimited ability to murder and maim. The 2008 DC vs. Heller Supreme Court decision recognizing an individual right to bear Arms was not a Constitutional decision, it was a political act of conservative justices kowtowing to a tiny minority of Americans and the arms industry.

The Second Amendment doesn't need to be repealed: the illegitimate DC vs. Heller decision simply needs to be overturned.