Reflections of the 2nd Amendment

A few thoughts on the Second Amendment

2^nd Amendment Text:
"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."

Now, I’m not a trained historian or lawyer, and yet a cursory reading of the intention behind the 2^nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights seems that it was for the purpose of addressing concerns that the Congress with the power to arm an army and the militias might also have the power to dis-arm the militias. This was a big concern from many states.
 

As a part of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”… and… “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

When Madison was given the job of getting all the suggestions and crafting the 2^nd Amendment, he was mainly concerned with assuring that the militias would not be dis-armed. The States were concerned about the power of a centralized government and a standing army, since they had just fought a war of independence from an oppressive government with a standing army. The militias of various states were part of that effort. We even hear some firearms advocates today suggesting this is a fear that is still relevant.
 

While Madison received many suggestions from the various state representatives about including clauses for self-defense, defense or property, hunting, conscientious religious objector exemptions, and other non-militia concerns, his refusal to include these ideas which became parts of some state constitutions and bills of rights, again shows his likely intent was to address the fear states had of their militias being dis-armed. The fact that other state constitutions included such clauses does not infer anything about the actual meaning or intention of why Madison excluded such clauses in the ratified version of the 2^nd Amendment.

The main intention was to insure that “males” would be able to ‘store’ and have ready for use the equipment of war in case the “well-regulated” militias were needed for the protection and security of the ‘state,’ or to “suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” as stated in Article 1, Section 8.

There was no intention in the 2^nd Amendment to limit Congress or the states in creating any laws regarding the non-military use of firearms or other items that could be used as weapons.

Most proponents of individual rights to own and carry firearms, usually dismiss the prefatory clause and focus only on what is defined as the operative clause of the 2^nd Amendment which states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  However, if this was the main intent and meant to apply to everyone and to all circumstances, why even include the prefatory clause: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”…?

What’s my point? I guess it is if anyone is going to use the 2^nd Amendment as a justification to own and carry weapons, then perhaps it is important to take into consideration the actual intent and meaning of the amendment within the historical context of when and why it was created. Otherwise let’s just have a reasonable discussion about guidelines for use of weapons and their purpose in our modern society and leave the Bill of Rights out of it.

While I personally have owned and used firearms and am a USAF Veteran of the Vietnam Era, I do not currently own or have access to guns. I can understand the use of guns by those who hunt wild game for food and for protection of property and family. I can understand the use of some form of weapons by our paid public servants who are assigned the tasks of keeping law and order in society.

And I do not understand why citizens are allowed to buy, store, and use weapons of mass destruction that are usually reserved for battlefield engagements. I ask: who is it that needs assault rifles, semi-automatic guns of any type, bullets that explode through protective vests, or high capacity clips that allow the firing of 30 shots in a few seconds? What is to limit the weapons that are allowed? Why not have bazookas or drones or nuclear warheads stored in the garage… and perhaps a tomahawk missile in the back yard just in case?

If a ban on assault weapons of mass destruction is a slippery slope that leads to further gun control and fewer gun-inflicted deaths… or ammunition control, then I think that it is a slide worth riding.

One practical action that seems to be getting some guns off the streets and out of homes is the gun buyback program conducted in many cities and states. Let us support these practical measures and also provide a bit of loving-kindness to others in need. And that is a topic for another time.

John Hutchinson
john@sunhutch.com