How would a judge who is a strict constructionist interpret the 2nd Amendment in the face of an argument by a Constitutional attorney who asserts that the original intent of the framers' intent is...

How would a judge who is a strict constructionist interpret the 2nd Amendment in the face of an argument by a Constitutional attorney who asserts that the original intent of the framers' intent is no longer relevant today? In supporting her arguments, the attorney insists that the 2nd Amendment was written in reaction to a time in which militias existed to defend settlements within the former Colonies and that guns were stored in armories and not always accessible to individuals. And that when a threat to the community existed, the weapons were distributed to the militia. The attorney examines the phrase, "well-regulated militia," to demonstrate that rules were in place to govern the conduct of the militia and that it can be extrapolated that these rules extended to the distribution and use of these weapon. At the crux of the attorney's argument is the contention that the original intent of the framers was to create a rule of law that would govern the use of weapons. 

Expert Answers
jerseygyrl1983 eNotes educator| Certified Educator

The strict constructionist would dismantle the constitutional attorney's argument by using the legal precedent, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision which found, by a 5-4 vote, that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns was unconstitutional. The Heller decision was the first major ruling on the Second Amendment since 1939 (United States v. Miller). 

I will assume the voice of such a judge:

"While it is true that the well-known prefatory clause, 'a well-regulated militia,' did express a purpose that was particular to its time, according to the Court, 'it [still] does not limit or expand the second part': 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Moreover, the prefatory clause acts as an anti-Federalist check on a government that could revert to tyranny. The clause acts to deny Congress the power 'to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms...' 

"Moreover, at the time that the Constitution was ratified, there were state constitutions that provided citizens with 'arms-bearing rights.' 

"While the Second Amendment does allow for limitations, such as 'longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,' it contains no language that prohibits the possession of arms altogether."