One crux of the Second Amendment debate concerns the meaning of a “militia.” Gun control advocates argue that a “well-regulated militia” applies only to the National Guard and makes no provision for individual ownership of firearms. Looking at the history of militias and the writings of the Founders, this just ain’t so.
First of all, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, militias in England are part of a common-law tradition extending back as far as the Anglo-Saxons. William Blackstone, the central figure in British constitutional thinking, considered gun ownership a basic “Right of Englishmen.” This right was enshrined in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which secured the right to keep and bear arms for Protestants. The English Bill of Rights was foundational to American claims to freedom during the Revolution.
In the U.S. context, militias composed of individual gun owners played a central role in the establishment of the colonies and their liberation from England. In fact, militias comprised of generally self-armed troops were a core element of the U.S. military throughout much of the 19th century. In the context of the American Founding, a militiaman had his own gun.
Even today, the U.S. Code makes clear that the “militia” is not only a National Guard, but also the whole body of the people:
Could this be any more clear?
The American Founders were quite explicit about their belief in individual firearm ownership:
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788
“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
You may believe the Second Amendment is outmoded or dangerous, but it’s hard to be intellectually honest and say it doesn’t support individual gun rights. If you want to ban guns, do the honest thing and work for repeal of the Second Amendment.
I quite agree with you on the merits, but I actually disagree with your first sentence.
The crux of 2nd Amendment interpretation is not the meaning of the word “militia,” but whether the “well-regulated Militia, being the security of a free State” functions to limit the meaning of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” After all, if “militia” referred only to a State-selected elite comprised of those who score highest on citizenship tests AND marksmanship tests, it would still leave unaltered both the fact and the rationale.
“to keep and bear arms,” says our Constitution, is “the right of the people”; it “shall not be infringed” (by Congress, the Courts, the Executive, the States, or any other Constitutional officers). What is very interesting is that the 2nd Amendment does not contain the “Congress shall pass no law” language; it is quite a bit more restrictive of government than the 1st Amendment, despite the interpretive follies that advocacy regimes have imposed.
Peace,
PGE
Hey PG-
I’ll definitely change the wording. But I still aver that one of the major cruxes of the debate is the meaning of “militia.”
I agree with you on the importance of the “shall not be infringed” language. It’s significant that gun ownership is clearly viewed not as a right given us by government but rather a pre-existing right which the new State is not to infringe upon. . .
This is the second time I’m hearing on one of your blogs that I’m a member of the militia. It’s also the second time EVER that I’m hearing that I’m a member of the militia. So if it’s so well organized, how come I’m hearing about my membership **by reading a blog**? I mean, even the Selective Service system, joke that it is, managed to catch my eye with couple posters in post offices and the embassy here in Warsaw…
Lib-
Hee! Blame Washington, not me. They do a terrible job enforcing a lot of their laws. Immigration springs to mind.
Seriously though, the significance of the militia laws is that they provide insight into the intention of the Second Amendment. I’m no more eager to go drill in the town square than you likely are. Though I imagine Warsaw has some nice ploshadi for marching. . .