Posted on 06/03/2008 12:07:26 PM PDT by neverdem
Anticipating the Supreme Court's expected late June decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which will decide the constitutionality of a D.C. law restricting gun-ownership rights, many analysts have turned to the Founders' writings in an effort to understand the Second Amendment. What analysts need to do -- recognizing that language and word usage change over time -- is turn to America's first dictionary.
The Second Amendment states simply, "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."
The Supreme Court questioned whether the D.C. statute "violate[d] the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."
For the answer, turn to Noah Webster.
Known as the Father of American Scholarship and Education, Webster believed that popular sovereignty in government must be accompanied by popular usage in language. In "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1806, and "An American Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1828 and adopted by Congress as the American standard, Webster defined all the words in the Second Amendment.
"People" were "the commonality, as distinct from men of rank," and "Right" was "just claim; immunity; privilege." "All men have a right to secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property," he wrote.
Thus in the language of Webster's time, "the people" meant individuals and individuals have "rights."
"Keep" was defined as "To hold; to retain one's power or possession; not to lose or part with ... To have in custody for security or preservation"; "Bear" as "to carry" or "to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat"; and "Arms" were defined as "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body."
Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat" -- soldiers carried muskets in their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.
Thus the words "keep and bear arms" suggest a right to hand-held arms as a person could "bear," such as muskets, pistols and swords, but not cannon and heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.
"Infringe" was defined by Webster as " ... to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance."
"Militia" was defined as "able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers ... and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations" and "Regulated" as " ... subject to rules or restrictions." A well-regulated militia consisted of civilians, not soldiers.
What about the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State?"
"Necessary" was defined as "that must be; that cannot be otherwise; indispensably requisite"; "Security" as "protection; effectual defense or safety from danger of any kind ... " and "Free" as "In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord."
"State" was defined as "A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of government ... ." A free state, we must conclude, therefore, encompasses the entire body politic.
During most of our history an exhaustive analysis of the Second Amendment would never have been necessary. The meaning of each word would have been obvious to citizens of the time.
It was only in the late 20th century that an Orwellian view of the Second Amendment gained currency. Within this distorted language prism, "the people" would come to mean the states or state-conscripted militia; "right" would mean governmental power; "keep" would no longer entail custody for security or preservation; "bear" would not mean carry; "arms" would not include ordinary handguns and rifles, and "infringe" would not include prohibition.
The Founders worded the Second Amendment in an easy to understand manner. Individuals have a right to have arms in their houses and to carry them for protection, and the government may not violate that right.
Modern contortions of language can't change that meaning because we can still refer to Noah Webster.
Thanks! Bookmarked.
Not bad, but I don’t know about this “carried in a coat” business. Certain very wealthy individuals owned their own cannon at the time of the Revolution. Nor were they carried in coats!!
Pray hard this decision gets made soon = and made right.
Interesting, if this interpretation is correct the second amendment not only guarantees the right to own firearms but knives, swords, crossbows, bulletproof vests and just about any other handheld weapon or body armor you could think of. I know some cities and states have banned knives over a certain length and bulletproof vests. If the upcoming supreme court decision goes our way it might have much farther reaching ramifications than firearms.
PING!
bookmarkarooskie
yes, that’s a word...and if you looked i your cop of Noah’s dictionary...ok...it became a word a bit after his time.
Seriously though, the Noah Webster dictionary is a fabulous read!
Great post. Thank you neverdem!
Not for much longer they don't. If anyone thinks this decision will come down on the side of the citizenry and not the gov't apparatchiks, they're smoking crack.
Even if the SCOTUS overturns the law in DC, the other large cities that effectively prohibit gun ownership, like Chicago, will never rescind their draconian laws. It's over, man.
I hate to say this because I believe all Americans should be allowed to keep and bear arms.... But even using an older Websters, there is still enough grey area in the second to suggest that you must be a member of a well regulated militia in order to have the right. On the other hand you could argue that a well regulated militia could be formed from the armed citizenry. The problem is the vague and pointless militia comment which was inserted. The constitution is imperfect because it was based on linguistic compromise, which deprived us of the clairity which should have been there. I’m pretty sure that the Democrats did it... @ssmunches.. LOL
Frisco is the only other large city to attempt a handgun ban, IIRC, and the Cali Supreme Court just shot that down not long ago. Some towns in Chicago's suburbs also have bans. If D.C.'s bans goes down as violating an individual right, Chicago's and the others will follow.
U.S. law recognizes unorganized militia. Do you need the statute?
Seems to me that “to bear arms in a coat” would mean “to have a coat of arms.”
I have HEARD that “regulated” meant “equipped,” and thus, the keeping and bearing of arms by the members of the militia (adult men) would result in their being well-equipped at those times when they formed themselves into a militia.
I also think that the first clause is irrelevant. The amendment says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
That is the imperative in the amendment. It is permanent. It is what the people legislated through their representatives. It was put there so that the people could resist the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to protect the freedom of their states. That is a permanent need and right of the people.
Nope, this would be useless were I granted a letter of Marque and Reprisal.
Fedgov determined in 1934 that I didn't have the unfettered right to own a machinegun, cannon, bomb, or other Article of War. Before that, we all had the right. We still do, but fedgov won't let us exercise it.
I’m not up to date on the case, but if you want to imagine how far it could go... Can you name another right that you have to pay a tax to exercise? Poll tax? Free speech tax?
I think this interpretation of “keep and bear arms” pertaining only to arms that could be carried by an individual must be disputed. The Constitution also authorizes the Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal, which authorize privately-owned warships to act as military resources of the U.S. government. A warship is hardly something that an individual could carry. Also, most of the cannons used by the Continental Army during the revolution were privately owned and borrowed for the conflict. So the idea that only arms able to be carried by an individual would be covered by the 2nd Amendment seems to be contradicted by history and other portions of the Constitution.
Well reasoned.
jw
All one really needs to do though, is remember why the Bill of Right was amended to the Constitution to begin with. The original drafts were rejected by various state delegates because the body of the Constitution did not clearly and unequivocally enumerate and protect the individual rights of the citizens. For ten years, delegates of the various colonies rejected the whole thing until these protections were finally embodied in the Bill of Rights.
Even the name "Bill of Rights" tells you they were referring to individual rights. Why bother to name it that if they were only protecting government rights? Nor did they call it the "Bill of Some Rights", that might indicate that not all the rights therein were reserved to "The People" rather than the government.
If our Supreme Court Jesters can't remember that much, then no argument and elucidation by Webster will help. The Second Amendment - Commentaries
That’s not the point at all. The point is that due to the verbage chosen, the 2nd is subject to assault by smartass lefty lawyers. If the Supreme Court gets stacked with libs, they could have a “landmark” decision that you must be a member of a well organized militia, IE the National Guard to be allowed to keep and bear arms. Don’t tell me what it is now, I’m warning about how our rights may very well be eroded in the future. Besides, our gun rights have already been infringed massivly as it is. What part of the 2nd allowed them to take gun ownership rights from felons, restrict where we may of may not carry guns, require hidden weapon permits, or registration of ownership of weapons
Historically, the term “arms” refers to any weapon or defensive armament that can be carried and employed by an individual.
In colonial America, individuals were charged with the maintenance of their personal firearms as part of a local militia (as well as required amount of powder and ball for that weapon since there was no uniformity, though extra powder was usually stockpiled in whatever local armory might exist).
Crew-served weapons like cannon were maintained by the community, and selected militia members trained in its use (one of the reasons militia units neede to assemble and train from time to time).
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.