Skip to main content

A brief thought about militias and the 2nd Amendment from Boston

It has been a long day in Boston, so I'll keep it short.

Yesterday at the Visitors' Center at Minute Man National Park on the Battle Road between Lexington and Concord, I watched (for probably the third or fourth time) The Road to Revolution media presentation.

I was struck, all of a sudden with one of those bursts of clarity that represents either insight or delusion.

Thinking about it all day today, however, I believe it holds up.

Here's the 2nd Amendment:

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.

Not to rehash, but you know the argument that this amendment was somehow intended to secure the right to bear arms only in the context of a well regulated Militia, which is almost always considered to be a State-organized institution.

Therefore, the right to bear arms is not about my personal right to own any firearm of my choice to protect myself, or--if necessary--shoot at tax collectors or British regulars.

But here's the problem for that interpretation: The Militia being referred to in the first clause of the sentence was a creation of the People, not the State. The Militias that took part in the running battle between Lexington and Concord in April 1775 had, for the most part, actually been organized in defiance of the British colonial government. They elected their own officers. [And in the intellectual/historical world of the Framers it is important to recall that these Militias pre-dated the existence of the United States government.]

That term regulated is primarily synonymous in eighteenth century usage with the modern term organized, rather than suggesting government supervision.

The phrase being necessary to the security of a free State is too often interpreted as being synonymous with something like being necessary to the defense of a free State. This is not, in late eighteenth-century parlance, what that was intended to mean. It would have struck veterans of the American Revolution as something closer to being necessary to the defense of our freedoms within the State. Even during the eighteenth century (perhaps especially then), the Framers would have understood that individuals--even if armed--could hardly counter-balanced despotic power.

Armed individuals self-organized into Militias could. The lesson most American historians choose to learn from the Revolution, at least in terms of military history, was that citizen-soldiers could fight off professionals under the right conditions. [See Henry W. Halleck, Elements of Military Art and Sceince, for a nineteenth-century example by a professional military historian.]

But citizens could not organize into Militias if the government had the power to seize their weapons as individuals.

Thus, the Second Amendment actually consists of two parts: a philosophical statement about the maintenance of freedom in the State, and a legal injunction.

A well-organized Militia being necessary to the defense of our freedoms within the State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What's interesting is that from the Whiskey Rebellion through the Civil War and forward into the middle Twentieth Century no serious effort--intellectual, philosophical, or legal--was made to use the Militia phrase as a reason to convert the 2nd Amendment from an individual right to a group right.

I have not loaded this post down with links and references because I'm sitting in a hotel far from the reference works of my library. However, feel free to post any material from sources contemporary to the period that would dispute this reading.

There are--perhaps--good arguments for gun control (although I've yet to hear too many that actually represent well-considered public policy rather than fear and ignorance).

Even if you fervently believe that the right of individual American citizens to keep and bear arms should be infringed, you do not have the right to change the meaning and sense of the sentence in late 18th-Century terms to do so. Argue that times have changed. Argue that the Framers never expected automatic weapons.

But please don't give me the untenable line that the Framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended to protect gun ownership only in the context of a State-controlled military force.

Because that's just not true.

Comments

Anonymous said…
All states are ultimately backed by force (guns) wielded by the owners of the state. In the US, the people own the state. So why should the people not have guns?

The criticism that the "people" are an unruly mob is an old aristocratic European criticism that we should not be resurrecting and repeating against ourselves. To the extent that the criticism is true, let's work to make it less true.
Anonymous said…
Thanks for providing "my" moment of clarity.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?