Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Second Amendment Doesn't Mean What it Says (Mass ACLU Barf-a-rama)
Massachusetts ACLU Loonies ^ | Mass ACLU

Posted on 02/19/2003 2:17:30 PM PST by Skooz

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the constitutional right to bear arms, still others have argued for discarding the Amendment as irrelevant and out of date.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


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; US: Massachusetts; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: aclu; banglist; communists; guncontrol; gunhaters; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 next last
To: Skooz
The Second Amendment was never intended as a gun license for the entire American populace

Like hell. One can disagree with the wisdom of the 2nd A, but don't try and blow smoke up my @#$ and tell me it doesn't mean what it says.
101 posted on 02/20/2003 8:20:07 AM PST by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
Thanks for posting that superb RKBA quote collection, I just saved and printed it for future ref.
102 posted on 02/20/2003 8:21:54 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: RonF
The SCOTUS can no more declare a part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional than it can declare white to be black.

Why not? If we're going to draw this artificial distinction, why can't the court, say, declare snow to be "legally" black in color, while acknowledging that legally black is not necessarily the same as colorimetrically black?

In this age of emanations of penumbras I have no difficulty at all seeing an imaginary SCOTUS full of Gore nominees declare the 2nd Amendment to be unconstitutional due to being inconsistent with the 'domestic tranquility' and 'general welfare' elements of the Preamble, or some such nonsense. If they did so, would the 2nd Amendment no longer be "legally" constitutional?

103 posted on 02/20/2003 8:22:26 AM PST by Sloth (I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Skooz
Reading this has given me a dull headache...and a flashback to when I was reading Orwell's Animal Farm. Specifically, the part where Squealer was explaining to the animals why it was OK for the pigs to be sleeping in beds.

The Mass. ACLU is doing to the 2nd Amendment what the pigs did with the Seven Commandments in AF.

104 posted on 02/20/2003 8:24:55 AM PST by KoestlersRedFiat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
I'm not saying that SCOTUS decisions are always right. I'm saying that they're always legal. "Constitutional" is a defined legal term, not a moral opinion.

Slavery was once defined as "legal" by the SCOTUS.

Would you have "obeyed the law" if you found a runaway slave in your barn, and turned him in, or fed him and sent him on, becoming a law breaker?

After you answer that, I will follow up with a contemporary question.

105 posted on 02/20/2003 8:25:37 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Actually, not a bad analogy. But there's a critical difference. There's enough access to technology for all citizens, and enough different corporations with enough different political viewpoints, that all viewpoints get heard and citizens can have sufficient perspective (if they care to) to make up their own minds before any one message has much of a deleterious effect.

Whereas if some nut fires an automatic weapon at a crowd, it doesn't matter if someone else has one and can fire back. You've still got a bunch of innocent corpses on hand.
106 posted on 02/20/2003 8:27:21 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; RonF
I think your post was intended for RonF.
107 posted on 02/20/2003 8:28:07 AM PST by Sloth (I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
Very nice. Did you collect these on your own? If not, what's the source?
108 posted on 02/20/2003 8:28:08 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Sloth; RonF
Whoops, that was meant for RonF. Thanks.
109 posted on 02/20/2003 8:31:23 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
I would have become a law breaker. I'm not saying that the law is always right. I'm saying it's always the law, until the courts decide different. I rather suspect that Henry David Thoreau is not held in wide regard here on FR, but it's seems what we're talking about here is Civil Disobedience. It's not legal, but it's moral if based on moral principles. Whether or not something is constitutional is a legal judgement, not a moral one.
110 posted on 02/20/2003 8:32:12 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Whereas if some nut fires an automatic weapon at a crowd, it doesn't matter if someone else has one and can fire back. You've still got a bunch of innocent corpses on hand.

The exact same situation existed in 1790, "some nut" could fire a one inch bore duck gun filled with dirty shot at a Sunday church picnic and do the same exact thing.

But the wounded would spend days screaming in pain as their infections killed them.

The slaughter would be the same, in 1790 or 2003. Medical science has more than kept pace with firearms, so your "weapons are more dangerous today" arguement holds zero water.

111 posted on 02/20/2003 8:35:46 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Sloth; Colt .45; Mulder; Noumenon; Eaker; Living Stone; big ern; PatrioticAmerican
My nightmare is that the war goes south with WMDs released in the USA and our economy collapses, and we wind up with President Evita, Attorney General Schumer, etc.

Then we will get the judges who will call black white, say that 2+2=5, and rule that there is no right of individuals to own firearms. In that case, we will soon arrive at a situation similar to the one described in my novel. (Click cover to read 28 chapters and see how it could happen.)


112 posted on 02/20/2003 8:44:37 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Thanks for the nomination! };^D)
113 posted on 02/20/2003 8:50:38 AM PST by RJayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Essentially, the Court took the position that the militia clause provided guidance on the definition of the term "arms", and concluded that it meant "weapons of a type typically wielded by individual soldiers".

Bummer. So I can't have my own artillery piece. However, I should be able to have my own mortar, or shoulder fired missle, as long as I can lug and its ammo around on my own back. COOL!

114 posted on 02/20/2003 8:57:31 AM PST by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Guntruths
115 posted on 02/20/2003 9:11:02 AM PST by A Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: RonF
You may believe that gun control laws are unconstitutional, but they will not be unconstitutional unless and until the Supreme Court rules them as such.

Which is, of course, why we need to have a pro-firearms-rights President and Senate, who will appoint and confirm pro-firearms-rights Justices.

Eyes on the ball, people!

116 posted on 02/20/2003 9:11:42 AM PST by Chemist_Geek ("Drill, R&D, and conserve" should be our watchwords! Energy independence for America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
My pleasure.
117 posted on 02/20/2003 9:14:41 AM PST by A Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
I have seen most of them, but that puts them all in one nice list.
118 posted on 02/20/2003 12:15:53 PM PST by Travis McGee (www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
The best way I can answer your question is this: sometimes.

Various courts rule in various manners. Some are clearly stacked with leftists and rule accordingly. Others have some common sense and an ability to read the Constitution (along with the thoughts of the framers etc..) and rule accordingly.

Quite often US vs Miller is cited as nothing more than a means to approve of gun control measures - since the ruling did not favor an unimpeded right to bear arms.

I view this as a clear warning that we've a lot of work to do.
119 posted on 02/20/2003 7:01:57 PM PST by Tahts-a-dats-ago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Thanks...email. I changed the words a bit. Glad you enjoyed it.
120 posted on 02/20/2003 7:11:00 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson