quote:
Originally posted by ekpolk:
"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."This amendment can be interpreted to say that 'ALL' people have the right to bear arms.If you break it down in the following way it would state:1.The government can not infringe on the need for a militia because they are needed for a free state,the militia needs guns.2.The right of the people to own and have a gun can not be infringed upon because it is their right to do so.At this time in history,how much law did the common folk have for protection from thieves etc.,not much.A person had to defend themselves,lock,stock and barrel.I also think that the founding fathers knew that a people without a way of defense was no better than what they had in England.A law abiding person should have the right to a gun just as the government does.I think that if a person looks at what is written in the 2nd amendment from the point of how the founding fathers had lived in England,they would see how the right for all people to have a gun was needed.A people without the right to defend themselves will eventually be under the total subjection of others.
Edited for spelling by motorguy222
[ June 17, 2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: motorguy222 ]
What Gun controllers don't want you to know
- Thread starter ALS
- Start date
- Status
I DO have a problem with an I.D. card to buy a firearm. Aside from the fact that you are now on record as a firearm owner with God knows how many agencies, if the government decides that they want to confiscate your firearms or just some of them, they have an easily accessible list, Just as the S.A. had in the thirties.
Again, well regulated in the 18th century DID NOT mean bound by lots of laws, it meant well trained. The Militia, which is not the same as the National Guard was in exsistence in many states.
We have the NICS check and I assume we will continue to have it in my lifetime. I can live with that, although I don't necessarily like it.
If the government followed the law instead of like the FBI, ignoring it, there would be no permanent record of firearms purchasers. Yes, I know about the 2414, but that is kept at the shop.
Again, well regulated in the 18th century DID NOT mean bound by lots of laws, it meant well trained. The Militia, which is not the same as the National Guard was in exsistence in many states.
We have the NICS check and I assume we will continue to have it in my lifetime. I can live with that, although I don't necessarily like it.
If the government followed the law instead of like the FBI, ignoring it, there would be no permanent record of firearms purchasers. Yes, I know about the 2414, but that is kept at the shop.
Guys, hold on. Let's stop e-stoning one another for a moment. Have you not surmised from my avatar that I might just be one of the folks who's actually sympathetic to reasonable weapon ownership??? The point I'm trying to make is that, as we all know, we face a huge lobby of folks who would just as soon melt every private weapon in existence. No self defense, no hunting, no target or trap shooting. To beat this crowd back for the long haul will take careful planning and logical argument. I'm NOT, repeat NOT trying to insult anyone, but emotional sloganism isn't going to cut it, except perhaps to give folks a few moments of personal satisfaction after zinging an opponent. Slogans are not going to protect your rights when this issue comes up in congress and the state legislatures. Compelling common sense arguments will.
The sort of "gun control" I can buy into consists of provisions like I mentioned above (Florida's 10-20-LIFE provision). Why? Because the measure targets only those who would and do use a weapon to further their own criminal intent. Also notice how the extremist gun controllers generally hate such provisions. Why? It lets the politicians say they've contributed to public safety, but the wackos haven't gotten to melt anyone's gun collection. In other words, they get thrown a bone (and a little dry one at that), while everyone else can walk away feeling like we have a reasonable compromise.
Bottom Line: please make sure you have your real enemy in your sights before you start putting rounds down range.
Oh yeah, in my previous post, I brought up the Marine Corps situation, not because the 2d Amendment gives the military the right to have arms (Jason, you know that's silly), but because we actually endure very strict control of weapons on base. Keeping of personal weapons is rigorously controlled. It can be done, but it ain't easy, and many don't bother (or live off base), but many do. If one is willing to play by a few rules, it works. Whether or not you find this acceptable is, of course, another story.
And no, Hamilton wasn't asinine, he was a pretty sharp guy from what I can tell. But as radically different as our lives today are from his back then, we do have one absolute in common with Hamilton: the wording of the Consititution. He had to live with it and so do we.
Steady on those triggers. . .
The way I see it with out all the fancy words and twisting words to mean one thing when they could mean another thing. I'm a sain person who does not commit any crimes and never will. I love guns, shooting, hunting and other firearm activitys. Why should I ever have to give that up? I'm no danger to society and have prooven that. I believe the 2nd ammend. is there to protect that for me and millions of Americans in the same boat and to prevent government form imposing unjust laws against me and others. We shoud never be restricted from firearms in any way, shape or form, that is ofcoarse if you are not a criminal.
[ June 17, 2004, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Chris B. ]
[ June 17, 2004, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Chris B. ]
Look up the freedom from war document and see what gun control is all about.
nortones2 asked "A question about the Militia under the US Constitution, if I may. Was the "militia" the sole armed body of the new State, or was it an adjunct to an existing regular army?"
See extracts from the Constitution below, which doesn't include the Bill of Rights. During the formative years of the US almost all of the discussion of the 'right to bear arms' was in the contex tof the militia, which was supposed to be the local body of armed citizens, under the control of the local and state government. The militia as originally envisioned diminished greatly after it proved very unreliable during the Whiskey Rebellion. This linkage between the militia and the 'right to bear arms' is why the US Supreme Court, even the current court which is the most conservative that we've had in decades, continues to decline to hear challenges to state and federal laws which are based upon the collective rights interpretation of the right to bear arms. These challenges are usually against US vs Miller, and usually expressed as some form of individual right to bear arms. Groups like the NRA will go so far as to state outright lies about justification for such an intrepretation, such as quoting Madison when justifying armed individuals unfettered by government, when in fact Madison was making a case for a strong federal government.
*******************************************
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: 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;
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment
*******************************************
See extracts from the Constitution below, which doesn't include the Bill of Rights. During the formative years of the US almost all of the discussion of the 'right to bear arms' was in the contex tof the militia, which was supposed to be the local body of armed citizens, under the control of the local and state government. The militia as originally envisioned diminished greatly after it proved very unreliable during the Whiskey Rebellion. This linkage between the militia and the 'right to bear arms' is why the US Supreme Court, even the current court which is the most conservative that we've had in decades, continues to decline to hear challenges to state and federal laws which are based upon the collective rights interpretation of the right to bear arms. These challenges are usually against US vs Miller, and usually expressed as some form of individual right to bear arms. Groups like the NRA will go so far as to state outright lies about justification for such an intrepretation, such as quoting Madison when justifying armed individuals unfettered by government, when in fact Madison was making a case for a strong federal government.
*******************************************
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: 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;
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment
*******************************************
As it is with virtually anything involving the government, nothing can be simple and clear. Case in point: the military reserves. Yes, the "militia" as it was conceived of in the early years of the republic, has essentially faded into oblivion. There are, however, many different "flavors" and "subflavors" of reservists. Best known is probably the National Guard (and now Air National Guard, something totally unknown during the 1700s...), which is nominally controlled by the state government, but which can be "federalized". Then you have the federal reserves, which include all branches (NG is only Army and Air Force). Each federal reserve component has its "drilling" reservists, who participate on a regular basis with an organized unit. Each also has an IRR (individual ready reserve). IRR members, although federal not state reservists, are probably the closest we have to the old tyme militia member. They maintain their status (rank, etc) but only participate when they wish to, or when recalled to augment their service (this is a gross oversimplification, you can see that precision would require a book...). Since I happen to be a Marine, and we have no "state reserve" component, I am less familiar with the NG and ANG, and frankly don't know if they have a parallel component to the federal IRR. If they do, these guys would be most akin to the old "militia," but even if they do, the "militia" concept has effectively ceased to exist, at least as it was known and understood 230 years ago.
ekpolk,
I'm not in the military, so I hope there's no offense if I salute you!
It is frustrating when well-meaning folks take any well-intentioned statement (in this case, an Amendment to the Constitution), & erroneously re-interpret it.
We embarked upon a similar discussion here about a year ago, & I argued your same point about the Second Amendment. (Unfortunately, when I now try to access that thread, all I get is "You have requested a topic that does not exist!".) I'm glad you're part of the shield protecting my family, & appreciate your willingness to express your POV on this topic.
I'm not in the military, so I hope there's no offense if I salute you!
It is frustrating when well-meaning folks take any well-intentioned statement (in this case, an Amendment to the Constitution), & erroneously re-interpret it.
We embarked upon a similar discussion here about a year ago, & I argued your same point about the Second Amendment. (Unfortunately, when I now try to access that thread, all I get is "You have requested a topic that does not exist!".) I'm glad you're part of the shield protecting my family, & appreciate your willingness to express your POV on this topic.
This is not quite true. See below.
Title 10 militia and
Definition of Militia
and in case anyone thinks it's from biased sources
Cornell U online law
Come on people, it took me 15 seconds to find this. So I have a hard time believing that only NG members and other government affiliated persons are the entire militia.
In any event, it is more evident than the supposed right to an abortion that was miraculously found in the Constitution.
The problem I see is that, depending upon where you look, you'll find differing interpretations and definitions of "militia". You are correct as to the statutory defintion, no dispute from me there. Is it a meaningful definition, though? The two primary categories involved are wildly different. The National Guard is an interesting entity (or collection thereof). Over my 24 years as a Marine, I've worked with ten or so different state guards on various exercises or operations. Without naming names, quality varies widely, state by state. A reassuring %-age are good solid and effective outfits that defy the stereotype of the lazy incompetent guardsman. In many conversations with my officer counterparts in those units, they are quick to point out that they don't consider themselves "militia" in the traditional (vs. modern statutory) view of the concept. Additionally, the definition of the "unorganized" component is troublesome as well. Males between 17 and 45??? It's such a vast category that it's largely meaningless. How could "the militia," as it's defined by statute, ever be put to realistic use, beyond calling up the National Guard? It can't. There is simply no organization or infrastructure to do it. In addition, can anyone actually envision a scenario that might happen in which the "unorganized" militia acutally got called out? Does doomsday come to mind? If you compare current reality with that statute, it's quite apparent that the two are significanly out of snyc. But again, looking at the statute alone, you are correct.
That's why its called the unorganized militia.
I think there's a lot of meaning there. To me it means everybody better be prepared to fight it out at any cost and even with no training if the excreta hits the fan, because eating Cheetos while watching CNN won't save anybody. I still remember from being in South Florida during Andrew, there was no lawful authority to be had under any circumstance, even by helicopter (all of them trashed at the airport along with the hangars) and one police chief's only advice on TV was "get a gun." Since 9/11 came about, the horrific disaster-movie scenarios that can realistically occur in real life have gone up significantly (King Kong & Godzilla excepted).
BTW I have nothing but respect for the US military in any capacity and salute your service.
If you really want to get into comparative analysis on gun control that includes all factors-cultural, legal, institutional, etc read The Samurai, the mountie, and the cowboy. Its a very exhaustive analysis of comparative gun usage in societies.
One interesting point when one factors in all deaths by violence all countries are not that different in rates. If guns are not available the next best thing is used--clubs, knives, etc.
One point gun control misses is that crime will happen whether the populace is disarmed or not, the only choice is whether the populace has the tools to fight back with. For me, I would rather have the problems associated with an armed populace rather than disarmed sheep.
Dan
One interesting point when one factors in all deaths by violence all countries are not that different in rates. If guns are not available the next best thing is used--clubs, knives, etc.
One point gun control misses is that crime will happen whether the populace is disarmed or not, the only choice is whether the populace has the tools to fight back with. For me, I would rather have the problems associated with an armed populace rather than disarmed sheep.
Dan
From looking at the state debates and ratifications of the bill of rights, the only mention of arms outside of the militia was in the minority opinion from Pennsylvannia. Note that the militia was considered to usually be 'well regulated', meaning the 'organized militia'. The term 'organized' and 'unorganized' militia comes from US Code, which from what I can figure the portion dealing with the militia was enacted in 1916.
*************************
Documentary History of the Bill of Rights, http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm
*************************
English Bill of Rights December 16, 1689
7. That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.
*************************
Virginia Bill of Rights June 12, 1776
13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
*************************
The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania To Their Constituents, Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser 18 December 1787
7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
11. That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of time only as such state shall agree.
From the foregoing investigation, it appears that the Congress under this constitution will not possess the confidence of the people, which is an essential requisite in a good government; for unless the laws command the confidence and respect of the great body of the people, so as to induce them to support them, when called on by the civil magistrate, they must be executed by the aid of a numerous standing army, which would be inconsistent with every idea of liberty; for the same force that may be employed to
compel obedience to good laws, might and probably would be used to wrest from the people their constitutional liberties. The framers of this constitution appear to have been aware of this great deficiency; to have been sensible that no dependence could be placed on the people for their support: but on the contrary, that the government must be executed by force. They have therefore made a provision for this purpose in a permanent STANDING ARMY, and a MILITIA that may be subjected to as strict discipline and government.
The absolute unqualified command that Congress have over the militia may be made instrumental to the destruction of all liberty, both public and private; whether of a personal, civil or religious nature.
First, the personal liberty of every man probably from sixteen to sixty years of age. may be destroyed by the power Congress have in organizing and governing of the militia. As militia they may be subjected to fines to any amount, levied in a military manner; they may be subjected to corporal punishments of the most disgraceful and humiliating kind, and to death itself, by the sentence of a court martial: To this our young men will be more immediately subjected, as a select militia, composed of them, will best answer the purposes of government.
Secondly, The rights of conscience may be violated, as there is no exemption of those persons who are conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms. These compose a respectable proportion of the community in the state. This is the more remarkable, because even when the distresses of the late war, and the evident disaffection of many citizens of that description, inflamed our passions, and when every person, who was obliged to risque his own life, must have been exasperated against such as on any account kept back from the common danger, yet even then, when outrage and violence might have been expected, the rights of conscience were held sacred.
Thirdly, The absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary
government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency; but in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.
*************************
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts February 6, 1788.
no mention of arms or militia.
*************************
A FRAGMENT OF FACTS, DISCLOSING THE CONDUCT OF THE MARYLAND CONVENTION, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF MARYLAND. ANNAPOLIS, April 21, 1788.
13. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, invasion, or rebellion.
This provision to restrain the powers of Congress over the militia, although by no means so ample as that provided by Magna Charta, and the other great fundamental and constitutional laws of Great Britain, (it being contrary to Magna Charta to punish a freeman by martial law, in time of peace, and murder to execute him,) yet it may prove an inestimable check; for all other provisions in favor of the rights of men would be vain and nugatory, if the power of subjecting all men, able to bear arms, to martial law at any moment should remain vested in Congress.
The following amendments were laid before the committee, and negatived by a majority.
1. That the militia, unless selected by lot, or voluntarily enlisted, shall not be marched beyond the limits of an adjoining state, without the consent of their legislature or executive.
10. That no person conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, in any case, shall be compelled personally to serve as a soldier.
*************************
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of South Carolina May 23, 1788.
no mention of arms or militia
*************************
George Mason's Master Draft of the Bill of Rights Amendments to the New Constitution of Government
17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.
19. That any Person religiously scrupulous of bearing Arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an Equivalent to employ another to bear Arms in his stead.
*************************
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire June 21, 1788.
no mention of arms or militia
*************************
Amendments Proposed by the Virginia Convention June 27, 1788
Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
Nineteenth, That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
Eleventh, That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining it's own Militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the Militia shall not be subject to Martial law, except when in actual service in time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State.
*************************
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York: July 26, 1788.[1]
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection.
That the Militia of any State shall not be compelled to serve without the limits of the State for a longer term than six weeks, without the Consent of the Legislature thereof.
*************************
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of North Carolina November 21, 1789.
19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.
XI. That each state, respectively, shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining its own militia whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service in time of war, invasion or rebellion: And when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties, and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own state.
*************************
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADAPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. PHILADELPHIA, TUESDAY, November 20, 1787, P. M.
It is said that Congress should not possess the power of calling out the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; nor the President have the command of them when called out for such purposes.
I believe any gentleman, who possesses military experience, will inform you that men without a uniformity of arms, accoutrements, and discipline, are no more than a mob in a camp; that, in the field, instead of assisting, they interfere with one another. If a soldier drops his musket, and his companion, unfurnished with one, takes it up, it is of no service, because his cartridges do not fit it. By means of this system, a uniformity of arms and discipline will prevail throughout the United States.
In calling forth the militia on necessary occasions; because they may call them from one end of the continent to the other, and wantonly harass them; besides, they may coerce men to act in the militia, whose consciences are against bearing arms in any case.
It is objected that the powers of Congress are too large, because "they have the power of calling forth the militia on necessary occasions, and may call them from one end of the continent to the other, and wantonly harass them; besides, they may coerce men to act in the militia whose consciences are against bearing arms in any case." It is true, by this system power is given to Congress to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, but every thing else is left to the state governments; they are to officer and train them.
Congress have also the power of calling them forth for the purpose of executing the laws of the Union, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions; but can it be supposed they would call them, in such case, from Georgia to New Hampshire? Common sense must oppose the idea.
Another objection is, "that Congress may borrow money, keep up standing armies, and command the militia." The present Congress possesses the power of borrowing money and of keeping up standing armies. Whether it will be proper at all times to keep up a body of troops, will be a question to be determined by Congress; but I hope the necessity will not subsist at all times. But if it should subsist, where is the gentleman that will say that they ought not to possess the necessary power of keeping them up?
If gentlemen will look into this article, and read for themselves, they will find that there is no well-grounded reason to suspect the President will be the tool of the Senate. "The President shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States. He may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officers in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relative to the duties of their respective offices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States." Must the President, after all, be called the tool of the Senate? I do not mean to insinuate that he has more powers than he ought to have, but merely to declare that they are of such a nature as to place him above expression of contempt.
The militia formed under this system, and trained by the several states, will be such a bulwark of internal strength, as to prevent the attacks of foreign enemies. I have been told that, about the year 1744, an attack was intended by France upon Massachusetts Bay, but was given up on reading the militia law of the province.
In every point of view, this regulation is calculated to produce good effects. How powerful and respectable must the body of militia appear under general and uniform regulations! How disjointed, weak, and inefficient are they at present! I appeal to military experience for the truth of my observations.
*************************
Documentary History of the Bill of Rights, http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm
*************************
English Bill of Rights December 16, 1689
7. That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.
*************************
Virginia Bill of Rights June 12, 1776
13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
*************************
The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania To Their Constituents, Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser 18 December 1787
7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
11. That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of time only as such state shall agree.
From the foregoing investigation, it appears that the Congress under this constitution will not possess the confidence of the people, which is an essential requisite in a good government; for unless the laws command the confidence and respect of the great body of the people, so as to induce them to support them, when called on by the civil magistrate, they must be executed by the aid of a numerous standing army, which would be inconsistent with every idea of liberty; for the same force that may be employed to
compel obedience to good laws, might and probably would be used to wrest from the people their constitutional liberties. The framers of this constitution appear to have been aware of this great deficiency; to have been sensible that no dependence could be placed on the people for their support: but on the contrary, that the government must be executed by force. They have therefore made a provision for this purpose in a permanent STANDING ARMY, and a MILITIA that may be subjected to as strict discipline and government.
The absolute unqualified command that Congress have over the militia may be made instrumental to the destruction of all liberty, both public and private; whether of a personal, civil or religious nature.
First, the personal liberty of every man probably from sixteen to sixty years of age. may be destroyed by the power Congress have in organizing and governing of the militia. As militia they may be subjected to fines to any amount, levied in a military manner; they may be subjected to corporal punishments of the most disgraceful and humiliating kind, and to death itself, by the sentence of a court martial: To this our young men will be more immediately subjected, as a select militia, composed of them, will best answer the purposes of government.
Secondly, The rights of conscience may be violated, as there is no exemption of those persons who are conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms. These compose a respectable proportion of the community in the state. This is the more remarkable, because even when the distresses of the late war, and the evident disaffection of many citizens of that description, inflamed our passions, and when every person, who was obliged to risque his own life, must have been exasperated against such as on any account kept back from the common danger, yet even then, when outrage and violence might have been expected, the rights of conscience were held sacred.
Thirdly, The absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary
government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency; but in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.
*************************
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts February 6, 1788.
no mention of arms or militia.
*************************
A FRAGMENT OF FACTS, DISCLOSING THE CONDUCT OF THE MARYLAND CONVENTION, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF MARYLAND. ANNAPOLIS, April 21, 1788.
13. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, invasion, or rebellion.
This provision to restrain the powers of Congress over the militia, although by no means so ample as that provided by Magna Charta, and the other great fundamental and constitutional laws of Great Britain, (it being contrary to Magna Charta to punish a freeman by martial law, in time of peace, and murder to execute him,) yet it may prove an inestimable check; for all other provisions in favor of the rights of men would be vain and nugatory, if the power of subjecting all men, able to bear arms, to martial law at any moment should remain vested in Congress.
The following amendments were laid before the committee, and negatived by a majority.
1. That the militia, unless selected by lot, or voluntarily enlisted, shall not be marched beyond the limits of an adjoining state, without the consent of their legislature or executive.
10. That no person conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, in any case, shall be compelled personally to serve as a soldier.
*************************
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of South Carolina May 23, 1788.
no mention of arms or militia
*************************
George Mason's Master Draft of the Bill of Rights Amendments to the New Constitution of Government
17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.
19. That any Person religiously scrupulous of bearing Arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an Equivalent to employ another to bear Arms in his stead.
*************************
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire June 21, 1788.
no mention of arms or militia
*************************
Amendments Proposed by the Virginia Convention June 27, 1788
Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
Nineteenth, That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
Eleventh, That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining it's own Militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the Militia shall not be subject to Martial law, except when in actual service in time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State.
*************************
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York: July 26, 1788.[1]
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection.
That the Militia of any State shall not be compelled to serve without the limits of the State for a longer term than six weeks, without the Consent of the Legislature thereof.
*************************
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of North Carolina November 21, 1789.
19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.
XI. That each state, respectively, shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining its own militia whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service in time of war, invasion or rebellion: And when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties, and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own state.
*************************
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADAPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. PHILADELPHIA, TUESDAY, November 20, 1787, P. M.
It is said that Congress should not possess the power of calling out the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; nor the President have the command of them when called out for such purposes.
I believe any gentleman, who possesses military experience, will inform you that men without a uniformity of arms, accoutrements, and discipline, are no more than a mob in a camp; that, in the field, instead of assisting, they interfere with one another. If a soldier drops his musket, and his companion, unfurnished with one, takes it up, it is of no service, because his cartridges do not fit it. By means of this system, a uniformity of arms and discipline will prevail throughout the United States.
In calling forth the militia on necessary occasions; because they may call them from one end of the continent to the other, and wantonly harass them; besides, they may coerce men to act in the militia, whose consciences are against bearing arms in any case.
It is objected that the powers of Congress are too large, because "they have the power of calling forth the militia on necessary occasions, and may call them from one end of the continent to the other, and wantonly harass them; besides, they may coerce men to act in the militia whose consciences are against bearing arms in any case." It is true, by this system power is given to Congress to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, but every thing else is left to the state governments; they are to officer and train them.
Congress have also the power of calling them forth for the purpose of executing the laws of the Union, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions; but can it be supposed they would call them, in such case, from Georgia to New Hampshire? Common sense must oppose the idea.
Another objection is, "that Congress may borrow money, keep up standing armies, and command the militia." The present Congress possesses the power of borrowing money and of keeping up standing armies. Whether it will be proper at all times to keep up a body of troops, will be a question to be determined by Congress; but I hope the necessity will not subsist at all times. But if it should subsist, where is the gentleman that will say that they ought not to possess the necessary power of keeping them up?
If gentlemen will look into this article, and read for themselves, they will find that there is no well-grounded reason to suspect the President will be the tool of the Senate. "The President shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States. He may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officers in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relative to the duties of their respective offices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States." Must the President, after all, be called the tool of the Senate? I do not mean to insinuate that he has more powers than he ought to have, but merely to declare that they are of such a nature as to place him above expression of contempt.
The militia formed under this system, and trained by the several states, will be such a bulwark of internal strength, as to prevent the attacks of foreign enemies. I have been told that, about the year 1744, an attack was intended by France upon Massachusetts Bay, but was given up on reading the militia law of the province.
In every point of view, this regulation is calculated to produce good effects. How powerful and respectable must the body of militia appear under general and uniform regulations! How disjointed, weak, and inefficient are they at present! I appeal to military experience for the truth of my observations.
Regulated can have several meanings.
If you refer to the earlier quote from Alexander Hamilton, you can see that during that time period and context it means well disciplined and trained. Does not necessarily have to be organized. In fact that would be prefered as your quotes stated the negative effects of a standing army in times of peace.
Everyone keeps mentioning the word militia...how about the word people. Why would it say people if they meant state?
To me, when using the correct definition of regulated, the second ammendment clearly means: THE PEOPLE have a right to bear arms so that they are proficient in those arms and will be capable of forming a militia AS NEEDED in order to protect themselves and the country.
Seems pretty clear cut too me. Seems sad how some want to twist it.
If you refer to the earlier quote from Alexander Hamilton, you can see that during that time period and context it means well disciplined and trained. Does not necessarily have to be organized. In fact that would be prefered as your quotes stated the negative effects of a standing army in times of peace.
Everyone keeps mentioning the word militia...how about the word people. Why would it say people if they meant state?
To me, when using the correct definition of regulated, the second ammendment clearly means: THE PEOPLE have a right to bear arms so that they are proficient in those arms and will be capable of forming a militia AS NEEDED in order to protect themselves and the country.
Seems pretty clear cut too me. Seems sad how some want to twist it.
Crossed my mind briefly
At least we can agree there!
Jason troxell said "To me, when using the correct definition of regulated, the second ammendment clearly means: THE PEOPLE have a right to bear arms so that they are proficient in those arms and will be capable of forming a militia AS NEEDED in order to protect themselves and the country."
But you also said "If you refer to the earlier quote from Alexander Hamilton, you can see that during that time period and context it means well disciplined and trained.", which is confirmed by many statements provided. Merely having arms is inadequate, merely having a militia is also inadequate, as a 'well regulated militia' is what was perceived to be the need. It's important to note that even when the minority opinion of Pennslyvania suggested an amendment noting that arms used pretty much in any common legal activity were to be protected, what was ratified was the right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. These days a 'well regulated militia' would be an organzied militia, which has undergone training and is provided arms as needed. I tend to think that the 'right to bear arms' was envisioned as an individual right, which seems to be clear from looking at what was discussed and the overall context of the amendments, but I also think that the right cannot be seperated from the context of a militia. If a militia still existed and members took their table of organization weapons home while they were still memebers of the militia, Switzerland probably being the closest example, I think that the issue would be easier to resolve. But, since we no longer have a 'well regulated militia' composed of a majority of male citizens who train on a regular basis we end up with confusing rulings on court cases.
But you also said "If you refer to the earlier quote from Alexander Hamilton, you can see that during that time period and context it means well disciplined and trained.", which is confirmed by many statements provided. Merely having arms is inadequate, merely having a militia is also inadequate, as a 'well regulated militia' is what was perceived to be the need. It's important to note that even when the minority opinion of Pennslyvania suggested an amendment noting that arms used pretty much in any common legal activity were to be protected, what was ratified was the right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. These days a 'well regulated militia' would be an organzied militia, which has undergone training and is provided arms as needed. I tend to think that the 'right to bear arms' was envisioned as an individual right, which seems to be clear from looking at what was discussed and the overall context of the amendments, but I also think that the right cannot be seperated from the context of a militia. If a militia still existed and members took their table of organization weapons home while they were still memebers of the militia, Switzerland probably being the closest example, I think that the issue would be easier to resolve. But, since we no longer have a 'well regulated militia' composed of a majority of male citizens who train on a regular basis we end up with confusing rulings on court cases.
But the people are the militia. Not a select few. The people.
- Status
