What The Second Amendment Really Says:

[Cosmoline]

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.

There are two main clauses in the Second Amendment. The first is preamble. It has no operative language whatsoever. It merely says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Well so what? That doesn't keep Congress from federalizing the loyal militias or going to war with rebel militias as it did during the Civil War. The clause doesn't go on to say "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the Several States to form and control militias...etc" It doesn't prohibit anyone from doing anything, it just says the well equipped ("regulated") militia is something the drafters think is important. And no sane person would suggest that the clause be read where the MILITIAS are the things which "shall not be infringed." Obviously, many were infringed and indeed destroyed when they crossed the feds in the 1860's.

The SECOND clause is the portion with the active language establishing a "RIGHT" which "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Those are key phrases, since they signal the creation of an individual right and an express limit on Congress' power to pass laws. The thing they cannot infringe is of course the right to keep and bear arms. Obviously at the time the drafters felt that arming the militias were an important reason behind this amendment, but they chose not to make this language anything more than a preamble. Since it has no operative effect it really doesn't add anything to the clause. The right remains, for whetever reason.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Graystar

You mentioned storing arms in armories. That won't be very effective if an errant government holds all the arms or can effectively deny the people access to them. We need our arms as much to secure our freedom from an errant government as we need them to secure ourselves from criminals.

Congress is not SUPPOSED to arm the militia, but it is within its power. Section 8 in Article I of the Constitution begins, "Congress shall have power;", then arming the militia is enumerated in Clause (16). Congress isn't COMMANDED to arm the militia, it is simply allowed to if it so desires.

Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not dependent upon the existence of the militia, it's the other way around. No armed citizenry, no militia. "Webster's" defines militia as: "an army composed of civilians called out in time of emergency". You gotta' be an armed citizen to be any good to a militia!

Even if the Second Amendment were to be repealed, we would still have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. But it is nice to have it. It gives us codified justification to throw out the bastards who infringe upon the right, or who refuse to remove the existing infringements.

And this: "Each right has its scope and purpose. Keeping guns at home for use against criminals is outside the scope of the Second Amendment." is laughable. We also keep guns at home in case of tyranny. You are trying to do an end run around the Constitution to justify gun control laws, and to govern the keeping and bearing of arms. Won't do, my friend. Any such laws would still infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Second Amendment is the ultimate preemption law in this land.

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Cosmoline

Well said. Just remember the Second Amendment doesn't establish the right, it protects it.

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

 

[RealGun]

But, state government can govern the use of arms. That power has not been denied them in the Constitution. - woodci

Not sure what you mean here, but the 2A should apply to the States via the 14A. The Courts have simply not allowed it as they have on most of the other BoR. In other words, the Second Amendment doesn't mean squat (in actual practice) unless dealing with the Feds.

 

[beerslurpy]

That is a specious argument, because every single person I have seen that claims "the 2nd amendment only restricts the federal government" OPPOSES repealing title 18 chapter 44 as unconstitutional.

I am perfectly willing to not force states to go one way or the other if it meant repealing all of the federal gun control laws as violations of the 2nd amendment.

Florida would end up with no restrictions except for conealed carry requiring a license and no open carry. Many other states would similarly become zero-restriction states.

 

[Graystar]

That won't be very effective if an errant government holds all the arms or can effectively deny the people access to them.

Oh please! You have to get over this “bad government” thing. That problem was solved (back then) by not having a standing army. There’s no need to fear a government that doesn’t have armed forces. But armed forces had to be available should the need arise. That’s what the Second Amendment and the congressional powers relating to the militia are all about. It’s about the US securing a ready and effective force without the need for a standing army. It is not about securing forces to fight our own government.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

beerslurpy

Just to be clear, I do not subscribe to any power of any government to limit anyone's right to self defense, be it with arms, a rock, a fist, a knife, or what have you. When I speak of a state's power to govern the use of arms, that would be limiting the discharge of firearms in the middle of town except in self defense, or firing your guns at the villain on the movie screen, and such.

Woody

"There is nothing to fear in this country from free people. But, when freedom is usurped, there is something to fear for people will revolt to remain free. To all usurpers, do the math. But don't wonder the outcome when you miscalculate." B.E.Wood

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Graystar

Quote:

Originally Posted by woodcdi
That won't be very effective if an errant government holds all the arms or can effectively deny the people access to them.
Oh please! You have to get over this “bad government” thing. That problem was solved (back then) by not having a standing army. There’s no need to fear a government that doesn’t have armed forces. But armed forces had to be available should the need arise. That’s what the Second Amendment and the congressional powers relating to the militia are all about. It’s about the US securing a ready and effective force without the need for a standing army. It is not about securing forces to fight our own government.

Oh, really? Problem solved? Ask Randy Weaver about that solved problem. Look at what happened at Waco in conjunction with that solved problem. Ask the Florida relatives of Elian Gonzales about that solved problem. Our government has many more armed forces than the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard.

Federal agents are not supposed to be armed for engagement of hostile actions against citizens of this country. They are armed in defense of themselves only. There is your "bad government" personified, my friend.

Woody

There is perspective and there is pretense. No amount of bombast or emotion can truthfully equate the two. One does not add validity to the other. Bombast and emotion added to pretense does not equal perspective. Reason, fact, and logic? That's a different matter. That will net you perspective every time. B.E.Wood

 

[deanf]

The Second Amendment does not protect the use of arms. It is also true that the federal government does not have the power granted to it to govern the use of arms. But, state government can govern the use of arms. That power has not been denied them in the Constitution.

Woody

If I may correct you: The IIA does protect the use of arms. The language is very clear. It's just that we don't need it. All your other points are not in dispute.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

deanf

Please point out where the 2A forbids government to infringe upon the use of arms.

I will point out that the right to the use of arms is not unlimited. One does not have the right to use arms to intimidate. One does not have the right to use arms to silence dissenters. One does not have the right to use arms to keep the beat with your favorite tune. One does not have the right to use arms to disturb the peace. Laws can be written forbidding such actions, and laws can be written to provide punishment for violating such laws. That is not unconstitutional.

Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as it is the right so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood

 

[ReadyontheRight]

woodcdi has an excellent point in his original post.

A free "state", not a free "State".

The word "State" having nothing to do with any government.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=state

10 entries found for state.
state ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stt)
n.
1. A condition or mode of being, as with regard to circumstances: a state of confusion.
2. A condition of being in a stage or form, as of structure, growth, or development: the fetal state.
3. A mental or emotional condition: in a manic state.
4. Informal. A condition of excitement or distress.
5. Physics. The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, composition, or structure: Ice is the solid state of water.
6. Social position or rank.
7. Ceremony; pomp: foreign leaders dining in state at the White House.
8.
a. The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
b. The sphere of supreme civil power within a given polity: matters of state.
9. A specific mode of government: the socialist state.
10. A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe.
11. One of the more or less internally autonomous territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government: the 48 contiguous states of the Union.

adj.
1. Of or relating to a body politic or to an internally autonomous territorial or political unit constituting a federation under one government: a monarch dealing with state matters; the department that handles state security.
2. Owned and operated by a state: state universities.

tr.v. stat·ed, stat·ing, states
To set forth in words; declare.

"A free state". A free condition. A free mode of being.

"A well-equipped citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free condition, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Sounds about right to me.

 

[Ivy Mike]

not to steer the debate too far from center, but ReadyontheRight brought up an interesting point that may or may not apply to the 1st amendment.

when it says that congress will not respect an establishment of religion, does that mean that congress shall not respect an establishment as in any church or specific faith, or does that forbid congress from setting an official religion?

 

[Graystar]

Ask Randy Weaver about that solved problem. Look at what happened at Waco in conjunction with that solved problem.

Our government doesn’t do everything as perfectly as it should, but I’m not going to allow that fact to be used to defend criminals. The outcomes of Ruby Ridge and Waco were the direct result of criminals refusing to comply with lawful authority.

when it says that congress will not respect an establishment of religion, does that mean that congress shall not respect an establishment as in any church or specific faith, or does that forbid congress from setting an official religion?

It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That means, for example, that Congress can’t pass a law prohibiting running a business on Sunday simply because Sunday is the Sabbath for some religions. That would be respecting an establishment of religion.

 

[beerslurpy]

Not to rain on your parade, Graystar, but...

Randy Weaver had committed no crime. The only crime he was ever suspected of was having a shotgun that was accidentally 17.9 inches instead of 18.0, a crime that has had a "knowingly" element for decades (thanks to the Staples precedent). Yes really, the ATF is that malicious and stupid.

The Branch Davidians arguably didnt commit any crime either, but proving that is difficult as the ATF destroyed all exculpatory evidence and killed most of the adult witnesses.

Yeah, totally their fault for not obeying lawful authority.

 

[Cosmoline]

Laws can be written forbidding such actions, and laws can be written to provide punishment for violating such laws. That is not unconstitutional.

Exactly, and that's the inherent compromise of the Second. Governments have been regulating the USE of firearms since the first codes were written. You are free to keep and bear them (or you're supposed to be) but you're not free to shoot up the town or fire bullets through your neighbor's cabin because his dog left a present on your lawn. A lot of folks on both sides of the debate have completely missed this critical element. Nowhere does the Second allow restrictions on possession of arms, but it leaves open regulation of where you can cap off rounds. It's a very common-sense approach. A firearm is only a threat to others when it's being fired, and it's at that point where the state has an interest in restricting conduct.

 

[Beachmaster]

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
-Patrick Henry

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good ... "
-George Washington

"The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams

"I ask you sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-George Mason

"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

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, or private self-defense."
-John Adams

I can't say it any better than these fine people did! The Second Amendment is about the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. It has nothing to do with arming a specific Militia, although ALL ABLE CITIZENS should make up a Militia if our country is attacked. It has nothing to do with Hunting, or putting food on the table. And it has nothing to do with the National Guard (who many mistakenly think is what the "Militia" turned into.)

It is such an important RIGHT, that the founding fathers placed it second only to Freedoms of Speech, the Press, Religion, and Assembly

 

[Beachmaster]

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
-Patrick Henry

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good ... "
-George Washington

"The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams

"I ask you sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-George Mason

"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

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, or private self-defense."
-John Adams

I can't say it any better than these fine people did! The Second Amendment is about the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. It has nothing to do with arming a specific Militia, although ALL ABLE CITIZENS should make up a Militia if our country is attacked. It has nothing to do with Hunting, or putting food on the table. And it has nothing to do with the National Guard (who many mistakenly think is what the "Militia" turned into.)

It is such an important RIGHT, that the founding fathers placed it second only to Freedoms of Speech, the Press, Religion, and Assembly

 

[Molon Labe]

The outcomes of Ruby Ridge and Waco were the direct result of criminals refusing to comply with lawful authority.

Totally agree... the ATF and FBI refused to comply with the lawful authority of Randy Weaver (Ruby Ridge) and the Branch Davidians (Waco).

 

[RealGun]

It is such an important RIGHT, that the founding fathers placed it second only to Freedoms of Speech, the Press, Religion, and Assembly - Beachmaster

Not exactly. The first few articles were dropped. I doubt that the sequence indicates an order of importance.

 

[Graystar]

Not to rain on your parade, Graystar, but...

Don’t fret...didn’t feel a drop.

Before the disastrous confrontations, both men refused to surrender to lawful authority. That makes them criminals.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Graystar

I cannot believe i am reading your comments on this site. They seem much more in character with an anti-gun position

That is about as much as I can say without either repeating points previously made.

WRT Ruby Ridge and Waco, if the law had been broken as you say, why were Weaver and the surviving members of Waco completely exonerated? Even IF they were wrong, since when does a $200.00 tax justify that kind of force?

I would suggest you review the information on both cases in more detail. You're absolutely wrong in your view.

 

[Freddymac]

Militia and military are two completely seperate things

Read any of the literature of the time and you will see a clear distinction. Civilian forces are refered to as militia, regular soldiers are refered as soldiers, as in the third amendment. Also in the writings of many of the founding fathers, this is also clearly evident. In "The Letters of The Federalst Farmer", Jefferson uses both terms, but does not interchange them. He clearly refers to a state or federal force as a "standing army", and the people as militia. Anyone who wants to "interpret" the Constution should read the works of the time first.

 

[Nicky Santoro]

Interesting thread. At the end of the day, however, you have to come to the realization that our founding fathers meant for the people as individuals to have access to the means of coercive force, not just the political class and their running dog enforcers.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Nicky

All said and done, that is the bottom line, isn't it! All the rest is obiter dictum.

Woody

"Impeachment is the Right of the People, vested in the powers granted to Congress, to preserve or restore Justice and Freedom, and preserve the Constitution of the United States. Those vested with power shall neither deprive the People the means, nor compel such recourse." B.E.Wood

 

[Graystar]

I cannot believe i am reading your comments on this site. They seem much more in character with an anti-gun position

If it’s anti-gun to oppose the blind support of criminals just because they happen to be on the same side of one particular issue as you are, then yes, I’m anti-gun.

WRT Ruby Ridge and Waco, if the law had been broken as you say, why were Weaver and the surviving members of Waco completely exonerated?

You really need to check your facts. They all went to jail.

Weaver went to jail for the missing his court date, which was the very reason the feds were negotiating with him to surrender himself, and is what led to the siege.

Several DBs were convicted of manslaughter and the rest of weapons charges.

I would suggest you review the information on both cases in more detail. You're absolutely wrong in your view.

If I were you I’d take your own advice.