Posted on 12/21/2002 2:30:44 PM PST by pabianice
2nd Amendment
"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."
Have you ever heard someone say gun control is a fine idea— except that the Second Amendment prohibits it?
It’s a popular sentiment. Fortunately, it’s not true.
The Second Amendment was never intended as a gun license for the entire American populace. As originally drafted—and as consistently interpreted by the courts for more than a century—the Amendment does not grant any blanket right to own a gun nor does it stand in the way of rational, effective gun control.
The idea of gun ownership as an American birthright is nothing more than a popular myth. Yet the controversy over gun control and the Second Amendment rages on.
As the nation’s oldest and most prominent defender of individual rights, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) holds the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights in the highest regard. To clear up many misconceptions, what follows are some basic questions and answers about the Second Amendment and gun control.
Q The Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Doesn’t it mean just that?
A There is more to the Second Amendment than just the last 14 words. Most of the debate on the Amendment has focused on its final phrase and entirely ignores the first phrase: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ." And to dissect the Amendment is to destroy its context. While some scholars have suggested that the Amendment gives individuals the constitutional right to bear arms, still others have argued for discarding the Amendment as irrelevant and out of date. However, the vast majority of constitutional experts agree that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to apply only to members of state-run, citizen militias.
Q If it doesn’t guarantee the right to own a gun, why was the Second Amendment included in the Bill of Rights?
A When James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights in the late 1780s, people were still suspicious of any centralized federal government. Just 10 years earlier, the British army been an occupying force in Colonial America—enforcing arbitrary laws decreed from afar. After the Revolutionary War, the states insisted on the constitutional right to defend themselves in case the fledgling U.S. government became tyrannical like the British Crown. The states demanded the right to keep an armed "militia" a form of insurance.
Q What exactly is "a well regulated militia?"
A Militias in 1792 consisted of part-time citizen-soldiers organized by individual states. Its members were civilians who kept arms, ammunition and other military equipment in their houses and barns—there was no other way to muster a militia with sufficient speed. Over time, however, the state militias failed to develop as originally anticipated. States found it difficult to organize and finance their militias and, by the mid-1800s, they had effectively ceased to exist. Beginning in 1903, Congress began to pass legislation that would eventually transform state militias into what is now the National Guard. Today, the National Guard—and Army Reserve—are scarcely recognizable as descendants of militias of the 1790s. The National Guard and Reserve forces, in fact, do not permit personnel to store military weapons at home. And many of today’s weapons—tanks, armored personnel carriers, airplanes and the like—hardly lend themselves to use by individuals.
Q Does the Second Amendment in any way guarantee gun rights to individuals?
A No. The weight of historical and legal scholarship clearly shows that the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee that states could maintain armed forces to resist the federal government. Most scholars overwhelmingly concur that the Second Amendment was never intended to guarantee gun ownership rights for individual personal use. Small arms ownership was common when the Bill of Rights was adopted, with many people owning single-shot firearms for hunting in what was then an overwhelmingly rural nation.
Q Does the Second Amendment authorize Americans to possess and own any firearms they feel they may need?
A Clearly, no. The original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of states to maintain state militias. Private gun ownership that is not necessary to the maintenance of militia is not protected by the Second Amendment.
Q Does the Second Amendment allow government to limit—even prohibit—ownership of guns by individuals?
A Yes. Federal, state and local governments can all regulate guns without violating the Second Amendment. State authorities have considerable powers to regulate guns. The federal government can also regulate firearm ownership, although some scholars believe that the federal power may not be as extensive as that of an individual state. California, for example, has limited the ability of local governments to regulate firearms. While the state has kept its broad regulatory power, cities and counties can only prohibit guns from being carried in public places.
Q How have the courts—particularly the U.S. Supreme Court—interpreted the Second Amendment?
A The Supreme Court has flatly held that the individual’s right to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution." In the four cases in which the high court has addressed the issue, it has consistently held that the Second Amendment does not confer a blanket right of individual gun ownership. The most important Supreme Court Second Amendment case, U.S. v. Miller, was decided in 1939. It involved two men who illegally shipped a sawed-off shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, then claimed the Second Amendment prohibited the federal government from prosecuting them. The court emphatically disagreed, ruling that the Second Amendment had the "obvious purpose" of creating state militias, not of authorizing individual gun ownership. In two earlier rulings in 1876 and 1886, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment affected only the federal government’s power to regulate gun ownership and had no effect on state gun control powers. Those cases, Presser v. U.S. and U.S. v. Cruikshank, formed the basis for the continuing legal decisions that the Second Amendment is not an impediment to rational gun control. In another case that the Supreme Court declined to review, a federal appeals court in Illinois ruled in 1983 that the Second Amendment could not prevent a municipal government from banning handgun possession. In the case, Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, the appeals court held that contemporary handguns couldn’t be considered as weapons relevant to a collective militia.
Q The National Rifle Association (NRA) says the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. Has the NRA got it wrong?
A Like any powerful special interest, the NRA works to secure its financial well being. It insists on a view of the Second Amendment that defies virtually all court decisions and contradicts findings of most legal scholars. In so doing, the NRA actively perpetuates a seemingly endless cycle of gun-related fatalities. The NRA intimidates politicians because it is very well financed and, like any wealthy single-issue special interest, can muster considerable pressure and scare tactics against legislators who oppose it. For decades, the NRA has effectively promulgated its message. Other voices have recently begun to be heard, however, including the public health community, civil rights and civil liberties organizations and groups committed to women’s, children’s and family rights. The NRA implies that the Bill of Rights forces us to accept unlimited gun ownership and tolerate the human tragedies that guns cause in our society. That simply isn’t true.
Q What are the Second Amendment positions of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Massachusetts?
A For decades, both the national ACLU and its Massachsetts affiliates have agreed the Second Amendment guarantees only the rights of states to maintain militias. The national ACLU has urged caution over gun control laws that, though well intended, might infringe on other civil liberties. The ACLU of Massachusetts believes effective gun control—especially of handguns and assault weapons—is essential to curbing the escalating violence in our society.
I know that this is what the framers had in mind, but I don't think it's what the ACLU is trying to foist on us. In which case, the ol' Anti-Christian Litigation Union is even farther off base than I was describing.
info@aclu-mass.org
I got a bounce on that email addy. Anybody got a better one?
I've always said that if you're not on some type of list, you're not doing something right.
Our enemies have our names and personal information.
...And some of us have their information. It works better that way because they're usually more high-profile.
After all, don't you think that Governments at all levels in the US consider us domestic enemies?
Not ALL levels - yet. Once the "War on Terror" gathers more momentum, it's quite possible. We're in a "crisis" ya'know... Writings such as this one from this ACLU puke always remind me of how much more our own government threatens our liberties than OBL and all of his minions.
A There is more to the Second Amendment than just the last 14 words. Most of the debate on the Amendment has focused on its final phrase and entirely ignores the first phrase: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ." And to dissect the Amendment is to destroy its context. While some scholars have suggested that the Amendment gives individuals the constitutional right to bear arms, still others have argued for discarding the Amendment as irrelevant and out of date. However, the vast majority of constitutional experts agree that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to apply only to members of state-run, citizen militias.
This is a lie the majority of scholars agree on the individual rights interpretation. And it is not a number of scholars game it is a quality of scholarship game.
Q If it doesn’t guarantee the right to own a gun, why was the Second Amendment included in the Bill of Rights?
A When James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights in the late 1780s, people were still suspicious of any centralized federal government. Just 10 years earlier, the British army been an occupying force in Colonial America—enforcing arbitrary laws decreed from afar. After the Revolutionary War, the states insisted on the constitutional right to defend themselves in case the fledgling U.S. government became tyrannical like the British Crown. The states demanded the right to keep an armed "militia" a form of insurance.
The Bill of Rights was first proposed by several of the state legislatures considering ratification of the then new Constitution. There was a distrust of any centralized government and the Right of the People to keep and bear arms was paramount in the minds of many. The United States of America had just been created out of thirteen colonies by means of a very difficult war where the armed people had prevailed.
Q What exactly is "a well regulated militia?"
A Militias in 1792 consisted of part-time citizen-soldiers organized by individual states. Its members were civilians who kept arms, ammunition and other military equipment in their houses and barns—there was no other way to muster a militia with sufficient speed. Over time, however, the state militias failed to develop as originally anticipated. States found it difficult to organize and finance their militias and, by the mid-1800s, they had effectively ceased to exist. Beginning in 1903, Congress began to pass legislation that would eventually transform state militias into what is now the National Guard. Today, the National Guard—and Army Reserve—are scarcely recognizable as descendants of militias of the 1790s. The National Guard and Reserve forces, in fact, do not permit personnel to store military weapons at home. And many of today’s weapons—tanks, armored personnel carriers, airplanes and the like—hardly lend themselves to use by individuals.
In 1792 militias were local organizations that had very little to do with any state or national entity. See the history of the battle of Leete's Island for an example of what constituted the local militia. In short this answer totally misrepresents the history.
Q Does the Second Amendment in any way guarantee gun rights to individuals? A No. The weight of historical and legal scholarship clearly shows that the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee that states could maintain armed forces to resist the federal government. Most scholars overwhelmingly concur that the Second Amendment was never intended to guarantee gun ownership rights for individual personal use. Small arms ownership was common when the Bill of Rights was adopted, with many people owning single-shot firearms for hunting in what was then an overwhelmingly rural nation.
A whole bunch of assertions with no facts supporting them.
Q Does the Second Amendment authorize Americans to possess and own any firearms they feel they may need? A Clearly, no. The original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of states to maintain state militias. Private gun ownership that is not necessary to the maintenance of militia is not protected by the Second Amendment.
See the many statements of the founders that take the opposite view. Among those statements are those from James Madison, George Mason, Noah Webster, Thomas Jefferson, Elbridge Gerry, and many others
Q Does the Second Amendment allow government to limit—even prohibit—ownership of guns by individuals? A Yes. Federal, state and local governments can all regulate guns without violating the Second Amendment. State authorities have considerable powers to regulate guns. The federal government can also regulate firearm ownership, although some scholars believe that the federal power may not be as extensive as that of an individual state. California, for example, has limited the ability of local governments to regulate firearms. While the state has kept its broad regulatory power, cities and counties can only prohibit guns from being carried in public places.
Federal state and Local Governments have asserted the authority to regulate firearms but the US Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter.
Q How have the courts—particularly the U.S. Supreme Court—interpreted the Second Amendment? A The Supreme Court has flatly held that the individual’s right to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution." In the four cases in which the high court has addressed the issue, it has consistently held that the Second Amendment does not confer a blanket right of individual gun ownership. The most important Supreme Court Second Amendment case, U.S. v. Miller, was decided in 1939. It involved two men who illegally shipped a sawed-off shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, then claimed the Second Amendment prohibited the federal government from prosecuting them. The court emphatically disagreed, ruling that the Second Amendment had the "obvious purpose" of creating state militias, not of authorizing individual gun ownership. In two earlier rulings in 1876 and 1886, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment affected only the federal government’s power to regulate gun ownership and had no effect on state gun control powers. Those cases, Presser v. U.S. and U.S. v. Cruikshank, formed the basis for the continuing legal decisions that the Second Amendment is not an impediment to rational gun control. In another case that the Supreme Court declined to review, a federal appeals court in Illinois ruled in 1983 that the Second Amendment could not prevent a municipal government from banning handgun possession. In the case, Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, the appeals court held that contemporary handguns couldn’t be considered as weapons relevant to a collective militia.
The author takes two words out of the Miller opinion which as a total affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms and only upheld the law in the absence of any evidence that a sawed off shotgun has any value as a militia weapon.
Q The National Rifle Association (NRA) says the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. Has the NRA got it wrong? A Like any powerful special interest, the NRA works to secure its financial well being. It insists on a view of the Second Amendment that defies virtually all court decisions and contradicts findings of most legal scholars. In so doing, the NRA actively perpetuates a seemingly endless cycle of gun-related fatalities. The NRA intimidates politicians because it is very well financed and, like any wealthy single-issue special interest, can muster considerable pressure and scare tactics against legislators who oppose it. For decades, the NRA has effectively promulgated its message. Other voices have recently begun to be heard, however, including the public health community, civil rights and civil liberties organizations and groups committed to women’s, children’s and family rights. The NRA implies that the Bill of Rights forces us to accept unlimited gun ownership and tolerate the human tragedies that guns cause in our society. That simply isn’t true.
A whole bunch of slander of the NRA.
Q What are the Second Amendment positions of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Massachusetts? A For decades, both the national ACLU and its Massachsetts affiliates have agreed the Second Amendment guarantees only the rights of states to maintain militias. The national ACLU has urged caution over gun control laws that, though well intended, might infringe on other civil liberties. The ACLU of Massachusetts believes effective gun control—especially of handguns and assault weapons—is essential to curbing the escalating violence in our society.
In short the ACLU picks and choose what "civil liberties" it sees as valuable. In general it only chooses to defend civil liberties when it sees using them as a way to help destroy America.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Yeah...YOU'RE to be trusted with firearms.
Armed and ready.
It is a sad state of affairs that we must be this close to taking action, but we are.
Stay safe; stay armed.
Is this a Marine Corps marching cadence??
I have got to believe that this destroyed the articles credibility!!
Stay safe; stay armed.
Section 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.
Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Section 24. That the sure and certain defense of a free people, is a well regulated militia; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to freedom, they ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and safety of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil authority.
Section 26. That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.
You know I'm right there beside you, Sir.
We, Sir, will be in the fight side by side.
We will prevail, because we are right and the patriots of America are the silent majority. The loud and vocal left have cringed before us before and will again.
At what point did our forefathers know that it was time to pull the trigger? Was it "clear as a bell", or murky like it is for us now? When will we know that it is truely "go time"? The time to tear this country apart so that it can be rebuilt back to its glory of just a few years ago.
I sincerely pray that we will have the wisdom to know when to go like they did back when they created the greatest country that there has ever been.
Stay safe; stay armed.
Salute presented.
Stay safe; stay armed.
One of the greatest unspoken ironies of all this is how the First Amendment, which the ACLU lives for, would not last long after the 2A, which they hate with a passion, is ground into the dust. Of course, you could not convince them of that. Afterwards, it would be the great "I told you so".
Another irony is how the ACLU would be happy to see all of us stripped of our guns by agents of the state who would employ, tsk, tsk -- GUNS. Imagine that.
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.