In Webster's English (The Founders' Second Amendment)

roanoke.com ^ | June 03, 2008 | Stephen P. Halbrook

[neverdem]

Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at The Independent Institute, Oakland, Calif., is author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms."

[cvq3842]

Thanks! Bookmarked.

[willgolfforfood]

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!!

[maine-iac7]

Added to all that - when the laws were written - the ‘militias’ were quickly formed from citizens with their own arms....a right that helps secure take over through control of arms by some entity that plans on controlling the citizenry...easily done if arms are owned/controlled by gov’t at any level.

Pray hard this decision gets made soon = and made right.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Wouldn't it make sense to also look up the words in Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language"?

The Second Amendment was passed in 1791. Webster's first dictionary was published 15 years later. Johnson's was published in 1755 & the fourth edition was published in 1773 -- it would most likely have been the dictionary that the drafters of the amendment used to look up words.

[apillar]

"Arms" were defined as "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body."

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.

[Andonius_99]

PING!

[woollyone]

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!

[liberty_lvr]

Individuals have a right to have arms in their houses and to carry them for protection, and the government may not violate that right.

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.

[DCBurgess58]

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

[neverdem]

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.

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.

[neverdem]

U.S. law recognizes unorganized militia. Do you need the statute?

[Arthur McGowan]

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.

[DBrow]

“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. “

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.

[Tao Yin]

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?

[Doug Loss]

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.

[JWinNC]

Well reasoned.

jw

[PsyOp]

An excellent article.

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

[DCBurgess58]

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

[PsyOp]

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).