During the House debates over the proposed amendments to the Constitution in the 1st Congress Thomas Scott said:
AUGUST 20, 1789
Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause in the [proposed] sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He said, if this becomes part of the constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent; it is attended with still further difficulties, for you can never depend upon your militia. This will lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, as in this case you must have recourse to a standing army. I conceive it is a matter of legislative right altogether.
[the proposed sixth being "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms"
Mr. BOUDINOT said that the provision in the clause or something like it appeared to be necessary. The words 'in person' were added after the word 'arms', and the amendment was adopted by the house (later modified by the Senate)]
Is the article he referred Article 1, which includes the militia clauses ( Sect 8) - Congress is "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia"?
AUGUST 20, 1789
Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause in the [proposed] sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He said, if this becomes part of the constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent; it is attended with still further difficulties, for you can never depend upon your militia. This will lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, as in this case you must have recourse to a standing army. I conceive it is a matter of legislative right altogether.
[the proposed sixth being "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms"
Mr. BOUDINOT said that the provision in the clause or something like it appeared to be necessary. The words 'in person' were added after the word 'arms', and the amendment was adopted by the house (later modified by the Senate)]
Is the article he referred Article 1, which includes the militia clauses ( Sect 8) - Congress is "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia"?
