“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.”
A sneak attack on the Second Amendment?
"Well governed armed forces, which are vital to provide security and protection to the independent State, shall not disobey the natural right of a person to bear arms."
This reinterpretation (rephrasing) turns the Second Amendment on its head. It says that 'well governed armed forces…shall not disobey the natural right…'
Not only does it separate the militia clause from possession of guns, it tries to say that armed forces cannot interfere with individual ownership of weapons.
Although the article later goes on to say that rights are conditional and limited, it does nothing to correct the subservient role of armed forces, be they local, state or national.
It also completely disregards the meaning and intent of the original phrasing of the Second Amendment. It's akin to the truncated version the NRA displays on its headquarters and preaches to the public and to Congress.
Too many people don't even know there is a militia clause, and if they do, they disregard it as being irrelevant in modern times.
The radicals who took over the NRA leadership in the 70s have achieved their objectives. The NRA itself has gone from an organization that promotes training and responsible gun ownership to an organization that espouses an absolute right of any citizen to own any weapon they want anywhere they want. Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia did not advocate such a position.
Since the text of the article will rarely accompany this new version of the Second Amendment, it's a disingenuous and dangerous rewording.
