Posted on 06/04/2002 7:43:27 AM PDT by Wolfstar
|
Wolfstar's Note: Two hundred and twenty six years after the signing of our Declaration of Independence, few Americans are taught -- or bother to learn -- the meaning of our founding documents. I plan to research and post a series of "The truth about..." articles for FR on the premise that Constitutional scholarship is not just for elites. The founding documents were not intended for the people to read and say, "Oh, that's what those guys in Congress are doing." They were intended to persuade the people to agree, first to independence, then to form a union of 13 very different newly independent sovereign states and adopt a republican form of government. In order for us to protect — conserve — our heritage, we must first understand it. To begin with the most contentious of our rights: The early legislation posted below makes it crystal clear that the right to KEEP and bear arms was intended as a right of the individual, not the state. How else could every able-bodied man between 18 and 45 meet the requirements of this Act? Few ever comment on the fact that the right is not just to bear arms when necessary, but to KEEP arms. Yet "the right to keep...arms" is the pivotal statement in the 2nd Amendment. The counter argument gun-control types make is that "well regulated militias" evolved into the National Guard, so the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. Although it's true that the early state militias evolved into the Guard, in our time the state and federal governments provide their arms and equipment. Modern police agencies also perform much of the role militias once filled. However, neither a government-armed National Guard nor modern government-employed police are what the founders meant when they enshrined the right to KEEP and bear arms in the Constitution. Police agencies created and employed by governments did not begin to evolve until the mid-1800's when thousands began leaving the land and moving to cities during the Industrial Revolution. Since the dawn of humankind up to only about 160 years ago, the able-bodied males of a community took responsibilty for what we, today, call "law enforcement." (Part 2 of "The Truth about the 2nd Amendment" will discuss the evolution and purpose of militias.) In colonial times, militias elected their own officers and organized themselves according to local customs. However, experiences leading up to the War for Independence — as well as during the period when Washington worked to shape ragtag militias from all over the 13 colonies into an army capable of defeating the British — convinced those who wrote the Constitution that the new nation's militias needed some degree of standardization. Hence the term "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment. The founders feared and opposed a standing professional army. They believed citizen militias would be less tempted to trample the rights of the people because they were formed of and by the people. They were not employed by, hence did not answer to, a monarch or centralized government. This is what the clause, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the scurity of a free state..." means. Sections III and IV of this Act reveal what "well regulated" meant to the founders. In the following, blue bold added for emphasis, ellipsis show editing for brevity, the following is otherwise verbatim. Click above link to read the entire Act. |
|
Militia Act of 1792
|
|
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States. I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied...male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside...And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer...to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years...shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and esontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes. II. [Ed. Note: Click link above to read entire Act.] III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment of two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major. IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled...there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword...bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private...shall furnish themselves with good horses...and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols...Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse...a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State... and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.
IX. And be it further enacted, That if any person whether officer or solder, belonging to the militia of any state, and called out into the service of the United States, be wounded or disabled, while in actual service, he shall be taken care of an provided for at the publick expense. V., VI., VII., VIII., X, et. al. [Ed. Note: Click here to read entire Act.] |
If it's time to bury them, it's time to dig them up.
With respect, you are incorrect. The Founding Fathers proposed and ratified the 2nd Amendment for one purpose, and one purpose only: to have a final failsafe for our Republic in the event that the Constitution failed and we ended up with a tyranny. In other words, they wanted to be certain that the people had the means with which to overthrow any future tyranny; they also had the hope that a very large arsenal of weapons held by most of the people in the nation would deter any would-be tyrants from even attempting to impose a tyranny in the first place.
Any other benefits of the 2nd Amendment, such as having a large, trained pool of people able to shoot well in order to oppose any invading army, protection against criminals (including terrorists), and various gun-related sports - these things are simply incidental to the main purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Republic, or of taking it back if it were ever lost.
That being said, you are correct that the police, armed forces, National Guard and various intelligence agencies cannot protect us against every threat. Having citizens bearing arms in the streets, in airports, sports stadiums, etc. would do lots to deter both crime and terrorism, and to combat them if such deterrence failed. I, along with many others, believe that the WTC towers would still be standing if a few passengers had been armed, as was legal before the early 1970's. Gun control has claimed another 3,000+ victims, and is on its way to destroying more of our freedoms.
I agree with your sentiment. However, military strategy demands that one have untouchable (by the enemy) reserves, reserves that can be called upon in the event that your current weapons or soldiers are killed, captured, destroyed, etc. Look, for example, at the Nazi-Soviet front in WW2 - without the seemingly unlimited reserves of men and material (even if both were of relatively low quality) that the German intelligence services had no inkling existed, the Soviets would surely have lost in late 1941 or early 1942, with disasterous consequences for the rest of the world. With regard to any hypothetical struggle against a future hypothetical tryranny (that's my CYA against the various lettered agencies that undoubted watch this board), it would seem to be wise on an individual level to have a similar strategy. Specifically, history has shown that resistance fighters in other nations that had weapons that a tyrannical government or occupying force didn't know about were far more able to take part in operations against the enemy than those that didn't. Those who had no such weapons were either S.O.L. or had to steal/capture new weapons at considerable (and, IMHO, unnecessary) risk.
I can't see how it would hurt to have one or a few non-papered guns (perhaps cheap foreign surplus), together with ammo and spare parts, in such an untouchable reserve. One never knows when such a reserve may come in handy.
Please, I mean no offense to the National Guard, but in the hands of a tyrant, the Armed Forces could be used against the American people.
No offence taken. The oath I swore as an officer was to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; not the government or any particular political officeholder.
But it may well be that the states have been derelict in not maintaining their own militia forces [though some do] and that in those locations, governors and others have failed to perform the duties and obligations of their offices.
Just off the top of my head, I believe it was repealed with the passage of the *Dick Act*, technically the The Militia Act of 1903, together with its 1908 amendment which created the structure of today's National Guard.
The act divided the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support. There was a one-time grant of $2 million to modernize equipment, and states could now use federal funds to pay for summer training camps.
I don't have the specific text of the Dick act, but it ought to be findable now that you know the legal name, approximate dates, and popular name for the legislation; if you can't find it with that, let me know and I can likely get it from my local Library of Congress Government Depository library; but I'd be very surprised it it isn't on the internet somewhere, likely at Thomas.
-atchy-/-
Remember too that in their day outposts of the empires of Great Britain, France, Spain and Russia were on or near the then-existing or future borders of the new nation, and if those countries seemed complacent or benevolent in their outlook toward the new American nation, those wise men knew that such things could change.
And now along our southern border, we face just such threats from those Mexican reconquista forces flooding that border with invaders. Those founding fathers gave us the tool with which to cure that problem, if today's later Americans will but make use of it.
It looks like it's coming to that.
-archy-/-
Your point is well-taken. The 2nd Amendment does not anticipate an assault by hijackers and suicide bombers. My post interpreted the intention of the Framers in general terms, which I will clarify here.
The Constitution, as reinterpreted by liberal regimes of the post-60's era has indeed failed in keeping out an army of foreign infiltrators. Indeed, the Government through the INS has aided and abetted the conspiracy by admitting them and granting them citizenship.
An islamic movement now seeks to impose their tyranny through internal and external means, both legal and illegal. As the Attorney General said, they seek to use our constitutional freedoms against us. Freedom itself is under attack.
I do not believe the framers foresaw this precise scenario, however, it does fit within the general parameters as put forth in your post.
That being said, the 5th Circuit's Emerson case said that you don't have to be an active member of the militia in order to be protected by the 2nd Amendment. Thus, the actual definition of militia is, while historically interesting, not that important for legal purposes at present. It does, however, help to confuse/piss off lieberals to tell them that they are members of the militia.
U.S. Code Title 10 defines militia as: "All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." This means we -- the citizens -- are the militia.
I think it does not contain any language concerning revocation of the 1792 act.
I was curiuos if the language was clear about which provisions of the original act were invalid and which, if any, were still 'on-the-books'.
Regards,
Keeping your entire supply of firearms at home renders them vulnerable to be confiscated at a time of the feds choosing (like a no-knock raid when nobody is at home to contest it)
A reserve supply can be dug up at a time of your choosing
Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
by J. Neil Schulman
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus".
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus", has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did "not" give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
*** "July 26, 1991
"Dear Professor Copperud:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, '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 debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.
"Sincerely,
"J. Neil Schulman"
***
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
***
[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms "solely" to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" "granted" by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."
[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence, "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" "only" to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
***
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
***************************************************************
I was looking at the "View" section of the LA Times from December 18, 1991 today -- an article on James Michener which my wife Kate had saved for me to read -- when the beginning of Jack Smith's column caught my eye: "Roy Copperud had no sooner died the other day than I had occasion to consult his excellent book, 'American Usage and Style: The Consensus.'"
Thus I learned of the death a few weeks ago of Roy Copperud, the retired USC professor whom I commissioned to do a grammatical analysis of the Second Amendment this past summer. (My article was published in the September 13th issue of "Gun Week".) It seems to have been one of the last projects he worked on. It is certainly one of the most important.
Roy Copperud told me afterwards that he, personally, favored gun control, but his analysis of the Second Amendment made clear that its protections of the right of the people to keep and bear arms were unaffected by its reference to militia. This sort of intellectual and professional honesty is sorely lacking in public discourse today.
In my several letters and phone conversations with Professor Copperud, I found him to be a gentleman of the old school. The planet is a little poorer without him.
J. Neil Schulman December 27, 1991
------------------------------ End of Article ---------------------------------------
BTW, I don't think that the 2nd Amendment requires that members of the militia be armed, though I take it in that spirit.
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.