Posted on 12/12/2007 2:03:04 PM PST by neverdem
When the Bill of Rights was ratified this week (Dec. 15) in 1791, the Founders never dreamed that centuries later the Second Amendment would become so controversial. To them, “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,” was fairly straightforward language.
How wrong they were, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s recent decision to rule on whether Washington, D.C.’s strict firearms law violates the Constitution, “a decision,” The Washington Post wrote, “that will raise the politically and culturally divisive issue of gun control just in time for the 2008 elections.”
The main controversy is over the phrase “A well regulated militia,” and its relationship to the statement “the people’s right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Gun-control advocates believe this language means that if you don’t belong to a “regulated militia” your right to own a gun can be “infringed.”
Gun-rights advocates counter by noting that the amendment does not grant a right; it recognizes a right already granted. The amendment does not say, “The people have the right to keep and bear arms.”
It says, “the (already established) right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And they have a point. As even the Supreme Court has acknowledged, the right to own firearms precedes the Bill of Rights.
Gun advocates also note that because the amendment gives the right to bear arms to the “people,” not the states, claiming that this right is dependent on anything the states do or don’t do — including forming militias — is ludicrous. After all, the Bill of Rights mentions no specific rights that the states possess, but several the people do.
Two additional points: In 1791, most state militias did not give guns to militiamen when militias were formed. Militiamen brought their guns with them — from home. Indeed, the amendment says they can “keep” their firearms, not merely “bear” them during military service.
Finally, (my hero) James Madison’s original Second Amendment language was as follows: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country.” Written that way, he is saying that if the people don’t have the right to arms, there can’t be a militia. That Congress reversed the order does not change Madison’s intent.
Granted, all constitutional rights, including free speech and gun ownership, are subject to reasonable restrictions — you can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater, and felons can’t possess firearms. But the general right to own firearms is constitutionally protected. We will see what the Supreme Court thinks.
Bruce Kauffmann’s e-mail address is bruce@history lessons.net
Sorry, don't mean to be rude, but, do you really believe that or are you just being an ass because you're arguing? The original words in the second amendment "keep" and "bear" have fallen into dis-use, the normally used present day words that mean the SAME thing would be "own" and "carry" (specifically to "carry with you"). To take into battle was the stated benefit of protecting the right to "Keep and bear", or if you prefer, "Own and Carry with you", it was never intended to be added to the "keep and bear" part of the amendment.
Bump
I’m not well versed on the law on this issue, but isn’t it clear from the purchasing and possession of weapons for the first 100 years+ of the US that individuals had a right to own firearms?
Obvious, excellant point AND tag...
By addressing the 'meaning' of what the 2nd Amendment stands for will wrap all these different rulings into one rule of law.
At least I think this is what will be accomplished. I admit I am a neophyte when it comes to Constitutional law, so maybe one of our lawyer posters can confirm or deny this.
Then foreign visitors, 3-year-olds, and the insane have the right to keep and bear arms. Or did God exclude them when giving out His rights.
Only if they declare it to be a fundamental right and incorporate it under the 14th amendment.
Yes, foreign visitors, 3-year-olds, and the insane have the right to keep and bear arms, 3 year olds have no way to obtain them because their parents should be smart enough to keep them out of reach until they've been properly educated in firearm safety, and the insane will not be allowed to have access to them in the sanitarium..... as long as we're there, criminals will not have access to them in prison either. Any other ridiculous questions?
Ah. So we should only enforce laws against behavior that actually harms others intead of against behavior that may harm others.
Meaning you would support eliminating our DUI laws? We'll simply punish those who actually cause an accident.
Never mind, I figured it out from your profile....
Uh-oh...Paulsen's off his meds again...
--Chances Are
Thanks for posting. Will “The Men in Black” adjudicate themselves into a coroner?
If you tell people they can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, that inserts temptation into the situation.
Why are Liberals so dense?
Now, now. You're just making that up. Admit it.
In 1791, "to keep" meant to upkeep -- to maintain in good working order. To have a functioning firearm ready for use.
In 1791, "to bear arms" had a distinct military connotation. An individual would bear arms to battle, not bear arms to go hunting.
I do agree, however, that the normally used present day words would be "own" and "carry". But they do not mean the same thing.
I'll try. What is the relevant question?
"Yes, foreign visitors, 3-year-olds, and the insane have the right to keep and bear arms"
Well, you say they have the right, then you tell me why they can't. A 3-year-old has the ialienable right to life. Can his parents take away that right also? Can an institution take the life of a person deemed insane?
But they can take firearms, huh? How did you ever come to choose your screeen name? Was that a joke?
: "Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." John Adams 1788(A Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the USA, p.471)
"They [proposed Bill of Rights] relate 1st. to private rights....the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government..." - 8 June 1789 (The Papers of James Madison, Hobson amp Rutland, 12:193, 204)
"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." - Noah Webster, An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
"if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recorse left but the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramont to all forms of positive government." - Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist Paper No. 28
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purpose without resistance is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms..." - Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53 (1788)
The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and state governments-nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning...Is this a right reserved to the State or to themselves? Is it not an unalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature.
The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution and void, which contravenes this right...
... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege. - Georgia case of Nunn v. State, from 1846.
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Art 6 para 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Bear means carry. Carry means to transport. Arms are self defense tools and trying to sub-divide into categories is meaningless. The People means the same as it does in the rest of the Constitution. Infringe means restrict, prohibit, or ban. Regulate means to make "regular" or well functioning and is only used in the Amendment in the context of ACTIVE duty militia and has ZERO bearing on the individual Right in the operative clause of the sentence.
There can be no rational debate with those who are working to subvert our Rights and the Constitutional protections for them. They are dishonest in the extreme and are accessories to murder for their advocacy of the validity of victim disarmament laws.
In 1791, "to keep" meant to upkeep -- to maintain in good working order. To have a functioning firearm ready for use.
In 1791, "to bear arms" had a distinct military connotation. An individual would bear arms to battle, not bear arms to go hunting.
Can you show us some proof or a citation to back up your definitional claim, or is this yet another robertpaulsen "proof by assertion"? Since I seem to recall you pretty much making these definitions up yourself on another thread, a cite from a more recognized, authoritative source would be nice.
He hasn't been nice all day, why would he start now?
Why are Liberals so dense?
They tempt us everyday and we haven't started shooting them yet...
Operative word: yet
I love it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.