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.
The Clinton-Obama Battle Continues
Does the Second Amendment Provide the Right to Bear Arms? U.S. Adults Think So
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
It is only “vague” if you let it be so....
We must argue on the plain basis of fact, not allowing the injection of “vagueness” or any other such nonsense.
The foregone conlusion to any reasonably educated, thinking person should be quite obvious:
A nation (free state) requires a force to protect (secure ) it (both the state and the free conditions it enjoys); the means being a militia (a non-government force made up of stakeholders). Therefore the citizens (the people) who established it (the “free state) have the right to keep and carry thier OWN arms to do the former.
Never let the anti’s allow you to defend the 2A it self-it says what it means; no legalese required.
Note that the 2A does not grant the right, it merely puts it into words.
The right being spoken of reflects back clearly on the “inalienable, self-evident” rights God bestowed on (all) men (declared in the Preamble). Nothing less, nothing more (as if there could be).
God Bless, Keep it simple.
(The other side gets worked up over simple, so let’s keep making the argument-maybe they’ll all have a stroke....)
My understanding of the meaning of “regulated” in use at the time was practiced, drilled or trained. As in a “Well trained militia”.
Oh, also, Under the Militia Act of 1792 (IIRC) all able bodied men were (maybe still ARE?) members of the unorganzied militia. The ARNG is not the militia that clashed the redcoats at Lexington-Concord. It was created as an arm of the US Army (FED GOV) by the Dick Act (IIRC) in 1915 (IIRC).
There currently is no “well regulated militia” in the form referenced by the 2A and many other aspects of of our early nation.... They were all federalized by the above Act-stripping away the states ability to field a force w/o interference of the FEDGOV. Imagine a Governor activating his NG for a state purpose, to counter the act, the Army (FEDGOV) simply activates them and make the US ARMY on thier uniforms a reality-with a new chain of command.... Who do you think pays and equips the ARNG? States? NOT!
“Regulation” in military terms denote practised, trained, NOT “controlled” as in common usage of today.
Once again, God Bless
Does that mean my PDW (personal defense weapon) isn't covered?
BM`d
Another Great Thread on our Nation’s greatest Heirloom!
Halbrook has very foolishly gone down a false trail here and is in deep doo-doo if some anti-gunner challenges him on it.
"to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat"; refers to the other meaning of "bear arms - the right to display a coat of arms"
Of course in essence the granting of a coat of arms was equivalent to an unrestricted carry license - it gave the holder the right to carry whatever arms they chose, wherever and under what circumstances they chose (and granted a similar right to all their acknowledged descendants in perpetuity)
Those not possessing "a coat of arms" - ie commoners, could be charged if suspected of carrying for unlawful purpose, ie poaching or engaged in insurrection (gentlefolk could shoot whatever game they liked and had to be charged with treason)
However all men were required to keep militia arms under common law
By the Assize of Arms of 1181, Henry II required all free men to possess arms, according to their class.2Edward's 1285 Statute of Westminster also extended those militia obligations to the "un-free" - Villeins and SerfsBut the militia had police duties as well as military. In 1285, Edward required "that every man shall have in his house arms for keeping the peace according to the ancient assize," and holding himself ready for service when summoned. Edward also provided for biannual inspection of those arms.3
You are right (see my above)
“I’m pretty sure that the Democrats did it... @ssmunches.. LOL”
Funny thing, Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party. How far they have strayed from his vison...
free State has always meant to me, not the condition of a body politic, but the nature of man being FREE... and not enslaved... read that way would mean that an armed man is a free man...
security of a free State...
an individual right and reward... lose the right and one loses his freedom...
teeman
BUMP!
Thanks for the ping!
Were cannon very expensive at the time of the Civil War?
That assumes the government has the authority to allow you to exercise your rights. That is a contradiction. The government didn't grant me that right, and hence cannot take it away.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE 
I think they are pretty expensive to build in any war. The handful of private citizens that owned them during the revolutionary war, and allowed them to be placed in service to fight the British, were all very wealthy men.
Spend some time reading the "bills of rights" of the "Articles of Confederation" STATE Constitutions. The best exposition was "The PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, for defense of themselves and their own state, and the taking of game." I "believe" that was from Connecticut's BOR, but am not absolutely sure.
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.