This is likely to be a long post – brought on by an email I received from Andrew Lear – I couldn’t believe what I read (58% of San Francisco voters have passed a handgun ban).
The second amendment is a topic that’s been sort of near to my heart for a long time. I can’t say why, maybe because it seems to spark such emotion and debate in people and yet for me it’s hard to understand how something so clearly written, in my opinion, is so often confused. I can’t begin to cover all the aspects of this debate I’d like – after all this is a blog.
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.
OK – I’m no scholar, far from it, but I’ve done my share of reading on this topic over the years and plan to continue. It seems at the center is the question: is it a public or individual right? Public meaning, the right to bear arms was intended only for those who are an active member of a publicly organized militia; typically in defense of the state or federal government. Individual meaning; all citizens have the right to bear arms whether they choose to participate in a militia or not.
My belief is that it's both a public and individual right. The easiest way for me to wrap my head around this is was to try and understand 1790 era. One of the best papers I’ve read on this topic comes from Robert E. Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment.
The memory of an eight year war against the British was still fresh in everyone’s mind when James Madison sponsored the first 10 constitutional amendments in 1789; based on the work of George Mason and the 1776 Virginia constitution. At the time there was a general distrust of any standing, professional army; especially that of a newly formed federal government. Most states had already adopted language within their constitutions to protect the rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms in defense of their state and personal property. While New Hampshire went as far to say, “Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.”
Obviously the reliance of arms to provide for and defend oneself, their family, and property are embraced within the second amendment as well as many state constitutions of the time. Jefferson, spoke specifically of this individual right, but he also spoke of something greater. To Madison he once wrote, “What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the sprit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
I believe our founding fathers and citizens had higher hopes of us. They hoped and believed that we’d remain educated and engaged in our government, and that participation was the foundation for a bill of rights. For me the second amendment preservers my right to protect and defend myself and my family from those who may wish us harm. But more importantly and in the sprit of Jefferson – it is the foundation of a free country and ensures the peoples ability to rise against and prevail over an oppressive government. Let’s hope none of us live to see the day when our country walks away from the ideals on which it was founded.
“The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national rights.”
-Joseph Story – Boston, 1833The Second Amendment
