How the Second Amendment Could Read

Gun possession is a uniquely local concern.  I have a legitimate interest in whether angry, careless or mentally unstable people in the geographic area where my family and I spend my life have access to firearms and ammunition.  Or whether my neighbor keeps a loaded handgun in his bedside table that could be accessible to a thief or a curious child.

On the other hand as a resident of the San Francisco bay area I have very little stake in whether people in Colorado walk around with a handgun strapped to their belt, or possess assault rifles.  Or if people in Wyoming drive around with loaded rifles in a rack in their pick up.

That the second amendment is obscure in its meaning has been clear since the founding fathers drafted it.   But the most fundamental problem with the second amendment isn't ambiguity.  It is that it converts a distinctly local concern into a Federal issue.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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."

Maybe that made sense as a Federal issue when we were 13 small colonies on the eastern seaboard with much of the country, and the State Militias, still engaged in periodic conflict with the native populations on the northern, western and southern borders of the country.  

It does not make sense today.

A revised second amendment should strike the first two clauses - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."  State Militias in the sense they existed when our Constitution was written, citizens keeping weapons in their home so they could respond to danger to the community, no longer exist.  Every state has a National Guard who supplies weapons members need.  We also have a multitude of law enforcement agencies, many with SWAT teams.   

The first clause should be replaced by language stating  "Control of deadly weapons being a uniquely local concern...."   With that preface the rest of the second amendment would work just fine if you add four words at the end - "...by the Federal Government."  

Maybe to avoid overly clever twisted legal logic making an end run around a State's choices in controlling deadly weapons you might have to add an exception providing that the right of the States to control deadly weapons supersedes the commerce clause.

This should be an eminently politically feasible amendment.  Instead of a Red State / Blue State battle to impose nationwide rules, each state could insure they have the right to determine the status of firearms in their state, or could let each county or city within the state decide for themselves how they wanted to treat deadly weapons.  

The resolution of our national disagreement over the second amendment should not be driven by all or nothing partisans on the two opposing sides.  The sensible middle should take the lead.