It's the contention of the District of Columbia that the Second Amendment to the Constitution applies only to the states. That is, according to press reports of the District of Columbia's brief filed with the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment exists only to prevent the Federal Government from disarming the state militias. If accurately reported, the brief states that the militias right to bear arms is a defense against an overbearing federal government. So according to the DC attorneys, including Walter Dellinger, the states can stand up to Federal usurpations by rising to arms.
I suggest that The Sons of Confederate Veterans file an Amicus Curiae Brief in this matter as befits the descendants of the last official holders of this position. If the DC Government prevails, this would seem to put the Civil War in a whole new light. A curious position coming from a city composed so heavily of the descendants of slaves. If this line of reasoning carries with the Supreme Court, we need to think about reparations for both the Slaves and the descendants of the Confederate dead. Where oh where will we find the money?
But seriously, I think this just exposes the degree to which we have gotten so far removed from the minds of the founders that any argument whatsoever is now possible in their names. No one who actually reads the letters and speeches of the authors of The Constitution can seriously doubt that the Second Amendment applies to both individuals and militias. And though it may upset some people I think they clearly envisioned secession from the union as a right.
The DC Government actually makes this case. If the States are sovereign and The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to armed militias as The District asserts, for the purpose of defending themselves from the Federal Government, how can we claim they have no right to leave that same governmental union? States defending themselves from the Federal Government without the right to leave would be in a state of perpetual war. Does this sound like Patrick Henry, or Jefferson or Washington, or Adams?
Still we can take a certain wry amusement in the resort to States Rights arguments by people who's very power rests on the emasculation of the states.