Initially the Second Amendment applied only to federal government infringement of the States’ ability to form militias, made up of the armed citizenry. Hence, the states remained able to infringe had there been any wish to do so.
Militias were critical to the National defense for almost the first century of our existence. To infringe on the Second would have been suicide.
Militias were composed of every able-bodied citizen which is where the individual right comes into the picture. Some states’ constitutions even define the militia as the able-bodied citizens.
I am not in agreement. If the First and Second amendments are to be applied equally as inalienable rights, then the states, per the 10th amendment, have domain over all other things not in the constitution granted the Federal government, but not in the matter of gun control. If the state wants to regulate cars, go for it. If they want to regulate pot, go for it. If they want to occupy your home with state soldiers, hold your horses (3rd amendment protection)...
Freedom of speech is protected. Period. Freedom to be armed in defense is, and should be protected. Period.
contemporary definitions of “militia” by both British and American sources:
British general Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne defines “militia” explicitly in 1777, leaving zero doubts to its meaning in ‘1777 after the Battle of
Bennington Aug 16, 1777:’
“The great bulk of the country is undoubtedly with
the Congress, in principle and zeal; and their measures are
executed with a Secrecy and dispatch that are not to be
equaled. Wherever the king`s forces point, militia, to the
amount of three or four thousand assemble in twenty-four hours; they bring with them their substance etc., the alarm over, they return to their farms. The Hampshire Grants [Vermont], in particular, a country unpeopled and almost unknown in the last war, now abounds in the most active and most rebellious race on the continent, and hangs like a gathering storm upon my left.”
-General John Burgoyne, “A State of the Expedition from Canada, as laid before the House of Commons, by Lieutenant-General Burgoyne, and Verified by Evidence; with a Collection of Authentic Documents, and an Addition of Many Circumstances Which were Prevented from Appearing before the House by the Prorogation of Parliament. (London: J. Almon, 1780) xxv.
General John Stark defines “militia” in 1809 ‘On August 16, [1777] a motley collection of militia led by John Stark... [Battle of Bennington] In 1809, Stark, aged 81, declined an invitation to return to Bennington, but sent a letter that was widely republished in newspapers. Referring to his “men that had not learned the art of submission, nor been trained in the art of war,” Stark closed his letter with the famous postscript, “Live free or die; Death is not the greatest of evils.”’ Wallomsack Review
The British define American militia: 1775: “Events which served to shew [sic] that if the Americans were yet unacquainted with military discipline they were not destitute of either courage or conduct but knew well and dared to avail themselves of such advantages as they possessed. The people of the colonies are accustomed to the use of fire arms from their earliest youth and are in general good marksmen. Such men placed in a house behind a wall or amongst trees are capable of doing as much execution as regular soldiers. And to these advantages which they possessed during the greatest part of the nineteenth of April we may attribute the inconsiderable loss sustained by them compared with that of our detachments.” Stedman,p.120 {British author]
[This is confirmed by the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention, 1837-8
Viz:: “The terms of the Constitution he need not refer to; and the amendment now under discussion was simply an AFFIRMANCE OF A POWER,-THAT THE RIGHT OF A PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Who fought the Battles, of Lexington,Bunker Hill and Saratoga?
...Who saved Baltimore? ... Who obtained the victory at New Orleans?
These militia, trained and disciplined in their own houses; not practised in the field, but BRINGING THEIR GUNS
WHICH THEY WERE TAUGHT TO USE WHEN CHILDREN..” p.111, p.168 are sourced from “Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Vol. 4, by the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention, 1837-8”
The second amendment also says "...being necessary to the security of a free State..."
Why would a state have the power to infringe that which the Constitution stipulates is necessary for the state to be free?
-PJ