A New Understanding Derived From Heller

[PeteRR]

Sometimes you go through life with the meaning of something being a given. The 2nd Amendment means we get to own guns. But listening to the oral arguments from DC vs Heller, It finally clicked on why the FF's worded it the way they did.

In a hierarchy of defending this country and it's Constitution there are levels, with each succeeding level being broader than the previous.

You start out with the elite military units like the SEALs and Delta Force. Trained to a razor sharp edge, but small in number.

Then you have the regular armed forces. Trained to fight, but they also spend a lot of time doing non-military things.

Then the Reserves, who only get called up in time of war. Then the National Guard, if the war is more serious or if a natural disaster occurs.

But what if the war comes to our shores or the natural disaster is so broad, that authority breaks down or can't reach the affected areas? Then the unorganised militia, which we all belong to, comes to the fore. It's the responsibility of this militia to uphold the law, defend the defenseless(ourselves primarily), and fight invaders until the Feds can respond.

This is the FF's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Not to fight them if they became tyrannical, because they assumed the separation of powers would keep the Federal Government in check, but to provide a pool of armed, trained volunteers to restrain the lawless and the invader.

"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."

A self-trained, self-armed body of free citizens, being necessary to the security of the United States, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be infringed at the peril of our very freedoms.

And from that, every use of a firearm contributes to that pool of trained volunteers. Self-defense, hunting, plinking, target shooting, gun smithing, collecting are all important and none should be sacrificed.

 

[Guitargod1985]

Good post. I'm surprised that Garu (Gura maybe?) didn't bring up this fact: one major reason we kicked butt in WWI was because people like Alvin York already knew how to shoot.

 

[CountGlockula]

The question is: How can we identify ourselves as a U.S. Militia today?

 

[mhillsing23]

I don't doubt that at some point(s) in history our enemies were deterred from engaging us on our land because of the well armed public.

 

[marsofold]

Quote: "The question is: How can we identify ourselves as a U.S. Militia today?"

I predict that if you openly join any group whose name includes the word "Militia", you will be labeled by Homeland Security as a person of interest and you will find that out the next time you try to board an airplane.

 

[CountGlockula]

Exactly.

 

[wdlsguy]

The question is: How can we identify ourselves as a U.S. Militia today?

Some states have their own military forces, such as the Texas State Guard...

 

[Soybomb]

I think you are seeing essentially what scalia was talking about when he said:

I don't see how there's
any, any, any contradiction between reading the second
clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the
first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not
necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia
that resisted the British was not State- managed. But
why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to
assume that since the framers knew that the way militias
were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing
a law against militias, but by taking away the people's
weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed.
The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need
a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."

 

[Samuel Adams]

”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, of Virginia: The Federalist, No. 46

 

[ceetee]

The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need
a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."

That's almost poetry. I've never read it so succinctly.

 

[res1b3uq]

militia?--I ARE militia!!

I read somewhere that one foreign leader made the statement that they would never invade the United States because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

 

[ronaldbeal]

"I don't doubt that at some point(s) in history our enemies were deterred from engaging us on our land because of the well armed public."

Indeed Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, of The Japanese navy said
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

RB

 

[Bobarino]

This is the FF's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Not to fight them if they became tyrannical, because they assumed the separation of powers would keep the Federal Government in check, but to provide a pool of armed, trained volunteers to restrain the lawless and the invader.

i heartily disagree. i think the framers meant the 2nd to be a defense against the tyrannical government first and foremost and foreign invaders second. remember how America gained its independence in the first place. an armed body of men rising up against a tyrannical gov't and booting them out. the 2A is the reason we aren't living in 1984 and the framers knew it. vitually every society on Earth has gone down that path. America will one day too, but the 2A will at least delay it a while...

Bobby

 

[nplant]

I like the analogous statement regarding books. Sometimes it puts an anti-rights person off a bit:

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the liberty of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

 

[siglite]

i heartily disagree. i think the framers meant the 2nd to be a defense against the tyrannical government first and foremost and foreign invaders second.

What I've been able to determine and infer, based largely on the transcript of the heller arguments, is that some states, and some of the founders believed that the militia was to be a governmental entity. Some of the others agreed with you. There were apparently multiple amendments offered, and what we see now as the 2nd is a compromise in language between the two positions.

This "compromise" theory on the 2nd was argued by Clement. I noted that none of the justices (not even Roberts) called BS on the idea. Nor did Gura. It seemed to be accepted universally during the arguments. Proposals were defeated on both sides. One read "keep and bear arms for the common defense." Another (apparently proposed by Pennsylvania) clearly stated that it was an individual right, but never even made it to the floor of the House or Senate.

Then, during the argument, they went all the way back to English common law. I think they did that to preserve the concept of "reasonable restrictions." I really think that's how this ruling is going to go. "Individual right, but 'reasonable restrictions' may be imposed."

 

[Caimlas]

I think you're wrong: the founding fathers were well-aware that the 2nd helped ensure that the population of this county would be able to resist -this- government's tyranny; many of the founding fathers so much as said so directly.

Yes, the primary hope was to protect the "homeland" from invasion. But there was always the expectation that the federal government - and all types of tyranny - would be kept in check through the exercise of rights outlined in the 2nd as well.

Oh, and I believe the person who said they'd never invade the US due to a rifle behind every blade of grass was the Japanese Admiral Yamato, shortly before WWII.

 

[siglite]

I think you're wrong: the founding fathers were well-aware that the 2nd helped ensure that the population of this county would be able to resist -this- government's tyranny;

Well, and that's part of what the discussion was in Heller, though it was not firmly framed as such. Arguments from both sides indicated that several of the founding fathers did not hold that position. Federalist papers #46 aside, I believe Madison would be an example.

 

[siglite]

As an afterthought, and FWIW, I believe that the "compromise" reached on the second leaned both towards the individual right, AND the defense against domestic tyranny of the majority. But that's my belief, and probably yours, and clearly Roberts' and Scalia's as well.

 

[Bezoar]

well the word militia was thrown into the second ammendment to ensure that every tom, dick, and harry who had assembled in times of crisis to repels indians or the british or the french, would have the undisputed right to do so in the future.
That i think was the ultimate check in the checks and balances idea of the democratic government system.

On one hand you get the congress and senate, the president, and the supreme court. They are all to balance each other out, but the founding fathers did their best to give us guns and the right to our citizen militias as the 4th and final check.
The idea was not just protection from foreing enemies, but as one also from a government that has gone bad. THey knew what had to be done to get american independence from an out of touch government in England. They wanted their distant descendants to have the ability to do the same.

 

[Markbo]

I think from what I have read that there was absolutely no question the 2A was designed to protect us from invaders and from the Government. I really don't think this can be debated. Each state at the time came up with their own language and the final result was taken from those as guides.

It was clear within some of those states offers, that defense against a tyrannical government was clearly a concern. Remember where they all came from... from being subjects of the King to taking up arms to revolt. They all speak about 'this great experiment' of theirs and the position that the people should strike down any tyrannical government - by force if necessary.

Remember that the people ARE the militia and a standing arming during times of peace was not to exist as it was viewed as too dangerous to have a standing army for fear of the Government using it against the people.

Absolute power corrupts...

 

[TCB in TN]

This is the FF's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Not to fight them if they became tyrannical, because they assumed the separation of powers would keep the Federal Government in check, but to provide a pool of armed, trained volunteers to restrain the lawless and the invader.

Perhaps some felt that way but read a little Jefferson and you will know that he did NOT! The majority of writings I have seen all point toward a large # of the FF who believed that the 2A was certainly needed to protect against Gov. tyranny!

 

[FieroCDSP]

I find the OP's interpretation poetic as well, but I don't think what the 2A is about can be summed up in a single sentence. As the Federalist papers and other documentation from the period indicate, the idea of a tyrannical government oppressing the people was foremost on the Founding Fathers' minds.
If the people were armed and assured the right to assemble (peacefully at first ), and the were not forced to quarter a standing army in their homes (where they could control the people), then there was little chance any tyrant could remain in power very long. The people could rally and retake the government by force if necessary.

What I think the 2A's "vagueness" represents is the Founders idea that people are charged with their own welfare and should be given the tools to make it so. So long as the people are in charge of their own lives, the government cannot grow large enough to threaten the freedoms enjoyed. I think the apathetic welfare state we live in now proves this idea was originally sound. When we have an understanding of how much we have to lose, we fight that much harder for it. When we allow the government to own us because we are too lazy to make our own decisions, why shouldn't the government expect to control our rights?

The Unorganized militia is you and I, those who are not in the National Guard or regular military. We have our homes and families to protect. When the Army and National Guard are tied up fighting wars or building an emergency levee, or plowing their way through a tornado-ravaged town to clear the way for the emergency teams, the unorganized militia is charged with seeing to our homes, families, friends, neighbors, and the like. We have every right to have the tools necessary to do so. If that means a generator to provide power to our home in an outage, or a gun to protect us from looters, rioters, or burglars, so be it. You can never know when the SHTF, or when you'll be "called upon" to exercise your responsibilities under the Unorganized Militia, and because of that, we need to have those tools ready all of the time, and be trained to use them.

The 2A isn't just a guarantee of a right to defense, it is also the charging of the responsibility to us. The 1A is the same. We have the right to freedom of speech, religion, and peaceful assembly, and are also charged with protecting those rights for ourselves and others. When we give up on protecting them, we allow the government to decide what they mean, and whether they should be granted.
Maybe the moment we decided to ask the government what the Constitution means was the moment we stopped demanding the government take it for what it said?

Maybe I'm rambling you all of you. It makes sense to me.

 

[Catsailor]

"Maybe the moment we decided to ask the government what the Constitution means was the moment we stopped demanding the government take it for what it said?"

Very well put.

 

[JWarren]

But what if the war comes to our shores or the natural disaster is so broad, that authority breaks down or can't reach the affected areas? Then the unorganised militia, which we all belong to, comes to the fore. It's the responsibility of this militia to uphold the law, defend the defenseless(ourselves primarily), and fight invaders until the Feds can respond.

No offense, but you are falling into the trap many of us Americans fall into: Interpreting things based upon today's political and societal rhetoric.

Our Founding Fathers left an abundance of writings that CLEARLY expressed their minds regarding many matters-- including the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Indeed, one of their PRIMARY motives was as a check and balance against governmental tyranny.

We just don't like to say that in general circles for fear of being considered a "right-wing" nutjob.


It is a VERY dangerous and VERY irresponsible trend in our society to attempt to fit intent into what we perhaps would wish it to mean. There are people IN the gun community that would prefer the notion of governmental tyranny to not be brought up. And yet, we cannot escape the fact that it WAS and IS one of the motivations of the Second.

The way we tend to attempt re-interpretations is on par with changing a dead man's will.


-- John

 

[Winchester 73]

That's almost poetry. I've never read it so succinctly.

Fine post by PeteRR ,and ceetee you are right.It can't be conjuncted much better than was done by the brilliant,cerebral Scalia.