The Spotsylvania Commonwealth's Attorney is showing his ignorance of Virginia history and law in a way that is quite pleasurable for those of us who want to preserve the Constitution. Especially since, as I like to point out, the Virginia Constitution's analogue to the Second Amendment makes it pretty clear that the right is tied to enabling a militia, as opposed to a standing army.
Article I. Bill of Rights Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Wow, that couldn't be any clearer.
Could it?
And you can see it for yourself at:
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article1/section13/
I know it's been changed to add the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but the original version written by Thomas Jefferson gives us a great idea of what the founder's intent happened to be:
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 §13 which was written by Thomas Jefferson.
The issue for the founders wasn't personal uses, but the preservation of the militia system. That's a military establishment like what Switzerland HAD where the professional, full-time, force is mainly for training and administration. The fighting force are the part-timers that is formed by pretty much every able bodied male.
Pulling in Virginia's declaration of rights is a godsend because it can get the issue back to the actual debates at the drafting of the Constitution. This is because pretty much all the texts used to justify gun rights are misquotations or taken out of context.
The real issue was that the Federal government had an army. The militias were state run organisations. And the militias weren't just anybody with a gun since any real discussion of this period needs to address Shays' Rebellion and the reaction to it.
The founders were concerned that since Congress had the power over the budget, they would favour the professional army, and possibly create a large standing army. As opposed to funding the militia. You will see the founders actually citing article 1, section 8, clause 16 in the debates in reference to this issue.
Hence the term "infringed".
Also, as the Virginia Constitution points out, the military, whether army or militia, needs to be under civilian control.
And as the US Constitution points out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: the militia is "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
But the bottom line is that rights come with responsibilities: and the right to keep and bear arms comes with the responsibility of serving in the active militia.
And following the law.
See also:
US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16

