endobj While the Second Amendment is short in length, it is broad in the scope of its protections. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. 3&;T2&;UobQ1)F84M_,`1e:E6<6&(1TXHBNQ>d=ABpP6R-9^VQAOI'c^)$gP.Yk3ZmFrDjc;i>8$. In May of 1788, the pseudonymous author "Federal Farmer" (his real identity is presumed to be either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith) wrote in Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer #169 or Letter XVIII regarding the definition of a "militia": A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. The "collective rights" model has been rejected by the Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model, beginning with its District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision. Peoples all around the world since time immemorial had armed themselves for the protection of themselves and others, and as organized nations began to appear these arrangements had been extended to the protection of the state. Below are some additional resources to help you learn more. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. [18][19] This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun. "[191], The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". As of 2010, 23 states and territories maintained their own SDFs. On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring: [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia [and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 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. Of the collective rights model that holds that the right to arms is based on militia membership, the Supreme Court in Heller said: A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics).
[40], The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court. IHVqM"N9tL=th1Un,h3)dRE5YqAAdtW8%#!2#+BWcITMZtV=D#pQYnI9q(.cOl&B63" 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 Bill of Rights. Miller sought to have his conviction overturned, claiming his Second Amendment rights were violated and that the Bill of Rights should be applied to state law. Penalties for failure to appear were enforced sporadically and selectively. 23 0 obj endobj There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. <> https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment, Cornell University Law School - Legal Information Institute - Second Amendment, LiveScience - The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms, Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. c.2. [82] A widespread fear, during the debates on ratifying the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens,[g] or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves. Id. at 627, 128 S.Ct. mg5l@:f8FT[CF8@6;_k6K-\MbY0`"q6?BY]Y#S&\VsIW`/K&*K3IX?DC0b:B9:W@Y ", Merkel and Uviller, pp. [165], The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective right" model, held that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia. ", Malcolm, "That Every Man Be Armed", pp. "[43] Before and after the English Bill of Rights, the government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm. ,!f_p;R)cHh$/=_feFF%Q0GJ1fSNpeUYPY(KA2h?W?,D Section 13. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted). 14 0 obj at 628); and that, "above all other interests", the second amendment elevates "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. [13][115], George Mason also argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of the British government's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."
And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people".[195]. 46, at 371 (James Madison) (John. [119], Therefore, Bogus argues, in a compromise with the slave states, and to reassure Patrick Henry, George Mason and other slaveholders that they would be able to keep their slave control militias independent of the federal government, James Madison (also slave owner) redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia. 21 0 obj A notable exception to this general rule was Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820), where the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment in an aside. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
[1][2][3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home,[4][5][6][7] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". Pennsylvania's act states:[34], 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. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. [44] In 1765, William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England describing the right to have arms in England during the 18th century as a subordinate auxiliary right of the subject that was "also declared" in the English Bill of Rights. As a result, some Patriots created their own militias that excluded the Loyalists and then sought to stock independent armories for their militias. &eJ]CL9][/N`Ab"K5$%gC@0\Y>j[Irq>"rQE`? Subsequently, the Constitutional Convention proposed in 1787 to grant Congress exclusive power to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size. [38] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms. *s/OrA;EY`_1c/U@:[a#*,ojd*h$4]
at 635. `eQ">N!qL]2c2R\@*1MCdQ)j'%0SIJUK9>rhD>=9'S+d?T]%\[!5_"="(6a7o:/Ko The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war". ?uBao]Jh2$h38"eE=.93#+#? [5]. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, gives explanation of the majority legal reasoning behind this decision. The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Unlike federal organizations such as the National Guard, SDFs are under the sole jurisdiction of state or territorial governments and cannot be commanded by the federal government. In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. In its full context it reads: Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evil Councillors Judges and Ministers employed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom (list of grievances including) by causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and employed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation taking into their most serious Consideration the best means for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Ancestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law. 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. 03-CV-0213-EGS, Shelly Parker, et al. [Q6PYkWTKf;hcG?j%K%18e"+icXNpgdn5O58J*E#%tB9@O%7>I\$2./N>,=0Yd[F2j._[JdV8)Z)(!H5)!V@Q"L&,q,F@ "The Second Amendment reflects traditional English attitudes toward these three distinct, but intertwined, issues: the right of the individual to protect his life, the challenge to government of an armed citizenry, and the preference for a militia over a standing army. [167][168] However, beginning with the Fifth Circuit's opinion United States v. Emerson in 2001, some circuit courts recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? [255], Reaction to Heller has varied, with many sources giving focus to the ruling referring to itself as being the first in Supreme Court history to read the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. endobj at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense" (id. The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter. endobj It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. The Court further stated that "the sorts of weapons protected were those `in common use at the time.'" In Heller, the Supreme Court resolved any remaining circuit splits by ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. [229][230][231][232][233][234] For example, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up Heller's findings and reasoning: In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id.
[35][36], The ratification act from New Jersey has no commas:[31].
[134] The Senate then slightly modified the language to read as the fourth article and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:[145], As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.[146][147]. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 0nEQf1:]Th+K-Q-m"T!C14]\,/5!ip6f`2b"nGQKq!9W[
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states: No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.[111][112]. The original text for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is, 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.. Gun laws vary by state, and some, such as California, have stricter regulations than others. I`8B[$_(ggf)]@dIWQbV`kJn@=Xg5H,Jt=IYeOQ)A3i! As defiance and opposition to British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists known as Patriots, who favored independence from British rule. It is the whole people, except for few public officials. [2], The Supreme Court has established that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right unrelated to ones status in a militia. Letter from Marlene McGuirl, Chief, British-American Law Division, Library of Congress (Oct. 29, 1976). <> at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right" (emphasis in original) (id. The episode provoked criticism of the citizen militia and inspired calls for a universal militia. Heller and McDonald supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. [204] The vast majority of regulation was done by states, and the first case law on weapons regulation dealt with state interpretations of the Second Amendment. [263] After McDonald, many questions about the Second Amendment remain unsettled, such as whether non-citizens are protected through the Equal Protection Clause.[263]. [62], Most Southern white men betweenthe ages of 18 and 45 were required to serve on "slave patrols" which were organized groups of white men who enforced discipline upon enslaved blacks. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Cruikshank, and also held that the Second Amendment prevented neither the States nor Congress from barring private militias that parade with arms; such a right "cannot be claimed as a right independent of law". In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice McReynolds, the Supreme Court stated "the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable. ]"[151] In contrast, Rawle characterizes the second clause of the Second Amendment, which he calls the corollary clause, as a general prohibition against such capricious abuse of government power. [i][152][153], Rawle, long before the concept of incorporation was formally recognized by the courts, or Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, contended that citizens could appeal to the Second Amendment should either the state or federal government attempt to disarm them. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. endstream It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. "[114] Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. "[193] The majority opinion quoted Spooner from The Unconstitutionality of Slavery as saying that the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery. From 1900 to 1920, tug-of-war was an official event at the Summer Olympics. at 625, 128 S.Ct.
Third, the Court referred to "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of `dangerous and unusual weapons.'" 2783. The officers, however, were of a higher quality, responding out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, and generally critical of the rank and file. If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation. [169][170], The second, known as the "sophisticated collective right model", held that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. Ultimately, the Catholic JamesII was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, and his successors, the Protestants WilliamIII and MaryII, accepted the conditions that were codified in the Bill. In 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago extended the prior ruling from federal laws to state and local laws. <> %2QqJiki,. [66] While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the Patriot militia, some have argued that there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense. [243][244][245][246] According Justice John Paul Stevens he was able to persuade Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to ask for some important changes to Justice Scalias opinion, so it was Justice Kennedy, who was needed to secure a fifth vote in Heller,[247] "who requested that the opinion include language stating that Heller should not be taken to cast doubt on many existing gun laws. 8 0 obj According to Picadio, this version was rejected because "it would have given to free blacks the constitutional right to have firearms".[126]. The following year, at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, 12 delegates from five states (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia) met and drew up a list of problems with the current government model. In response to this arms build-up, the British parliament established an embargo of firearms, parts and ammunition against the American colonies. [104][105] Anti-federalists, on the other hand, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. 19 0 obj 8QfEQMG>AemO\oXZ`OsXMQ&`PH%T0m"p[b`)K This similarity is notable because it affirms that the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right.
The Supreme Court also affirmed previous rulings that the Second Amendment ensured the right of individuals to take part in the defending of their liberties by taking up arms in an organized militia. [147] Supporters of this model argued that "although the first clause may describe a general purpose for the amendment, the second clause is controlling and therefore the amendment confers an individual right 'of the people' to keep and bear arms". "[227] The Michigan Court of Appeals 2012 relied on Heller in the case People v. Yanna to state certain limitations on the right to keep and bear arms: In some respects, these limitations are consistent with each other. "Finally, we should note that (contrary to Kates's assertion), Blackstone nowhere suggests that the right to arms derives from 'the common law'. (See also gun control.). endobj Corrections? ?Vu1%*T,HPGB%@'OD`*nme[s-=IR,`B*dLYMCI&QXlJXJ*ZCoGG6=Z1I#deRAX= 1NRC9'#G'Mc47*f3C'&?;ElcIIR1b7%F:4?
[40], The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court. IHVqM"N9tL=th1Un,h3)dRE5YqAAdtW8%#!2#+BWcITMZtV=D#pQYnI9q(.cOl&B63" 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 Bill of Rights. Miller sought to have his conviction overturned, claiming his Second Amendment rights were violated and that the Bill of Rights should be applied to state law. Penalties for failure to appear were enforced sporadically and selectively. 23 0 obj endobj There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. <> https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment, Cornell University Law School - Legal Information Institute - Second Amendment, LiveScience - The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms, Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. c.2. [82] A widespread fear, during the debates on ratifying the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens,[g] or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves. Id. at 627, 128 S.Ct. mg5l@:f8FT[CF8@6;_k6K-\MbY0`"q6?BY]Y#S&\VsIW`/K&*K3IX?DC0b:B9:W@Y ", Merkel and Uviller, pp. [165], The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective right" model, held that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia. ", Malcolm, "That Every Man Be Armed", pp. "[43] Before and after the English Bill of Rights, the government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm. ,!f_p;R)cHh$/=_feFF%Q0GJ1fSNpeUYPY(KA2h?W?,D Section 13. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted). 14 0 obj at 628); and that, "above all other interests", the second amendment elevates "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. [13][115], George Mason also argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of the British government's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."
And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people".[195]. 46, at 371 (James Madison) (John. [119], Therefore, Bogus argues, in a compromise with the slave states, and to reassure Patrick Henry, George Mason and other slaveholders that they would be able to keep their slave control militias independent of the federal government, James Madison (also slave owner) redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia. 21 0 obj A notable exception to this general rule was Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820), where the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment in an aside. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
[1][2][3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home,[4][5][6][7] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". Pennsylvania's act states:[34], 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. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. [44] In 1765, William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England describing the right to have arms in England during the 18th century as a subordinate auxiliary right of the subject that was "also declared" in the English Bill of Rights. As a result, some Patriots created their own militias that excluded the Loyalists and then sought to stock independent armories for their militias. &eJ]CL9][/N`Ab"K5$%gC@0\Y>j[Irq>"rQE`? Subsequently, the Constitutional Convention proposed in 1787 to grant Congress exclusive power to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size. [38] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms. *s/OrA;EY`_1c/U@:[a#*,ojd*h$4]
at 635. `eQ">N!qL]2c2R\@*1MCdQ)j'%0SIJUK9>rhD>=9'S+d?T]%\[!5_"="(6a7o:/Ko The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war". ?uBao]Jh2$h38"eE=.93#+#? [5]. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, gives explanation of the majority legal reasoning behind this decision. The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Unlike federal organizations such as the National Guard, SDFs are under the sole jurisdiction of state or territorial governments and cannot be commanded by the federal government. In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. In its full context it reads: Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evil Councillors Judges and Ministers employed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom (list of grievances including) by causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and employed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation taking into their most serious Consideration the best means for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Ancestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law. 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. 03-CV-0213-EGS, Shelly Parker, et al. [Q6PYkWTKf;hcG?j%K%18e"+icXNpgdn5O58J*E#%tB9@O%7>I\$2./N>,=0Yd[F2j._[JdV8)Z)(!H5)!V@Q"L&,q,F@ "The Second Amendment reflects traditional English attitudes toward these three distinct, but intertwined, issues: the right of the individual to protect his life, the challenge to government of an armed citizenry, and the preference for a militia over a standing army. [167][168] However, beginning with the Fifth Circuit's opinion United States v. Emerson in 2001, some circuit courts recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? [255], Reaction to Heller has varied, with many sources giving focus to the ruling referring to itself as being the first in Supreme Court history to read the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. endobj at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense" (id. The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter. endobj It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. The Court further stated that "the sorts of weapons protected were those `in common use at the time.'" In Heller, the Supreme Court resolved any remaining circuit splits by ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. [229][230][231][232][233][234] For example, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up Heller's findings and reasoning: In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id.
[35][36], The ratification act from New Jersey has no commas:[31].
[134] The Senate then slightly modified the language to read as the fourth article and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:[145], As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.[146][147]. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 0nEQf1:]Th+K-Q-m"T!C14]\,/5!ip6f`2b"nGQKq!9W[
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states: No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.[111][112]. The original text for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is, 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.. Gun laws vary by state, and some, such as California, have stricter regulations than others. I`8B[$_(ggf)]@dIWQbV`kJn@=Xg5H,Jt=IYeOQ)A3i! As defiance and opposition to British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists known as Patriots, who favored independence from British rule. It is the whole people, except for few public officials. [2], The Supreme Court has established that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right unrelated to ones status in a militia. Letter from Marlene McGuirl, Chief, British-American Law Division, Library of Congress (Oct. 29, 1976). <> at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right" (emphasis in original) (id. The episode provoked criticism of the citizen militia and inspired calls for a universal militia. Heller and McDonald supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. [204] The vast majority of regulation was done by states, and the first case law on weapons regulation dealt with state interpretations of the Second Amendment. [263] After McDonald, many questions about the Second Amendment remain unsettled, such as whether non-citizens are protected through the Equal Protection Clause.[263]. [62], Most Southern white men betweenthe ages of 18 and 45 were required to serve on "slave patrols" which were organized groups of white men who enforced discipline upon enslaved blacks. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Cruikshank, and also held that the Second Amendment prevented neither the States nor Congress from barring private militias that parade with arms; such a right "cannot be claimed as a right independent of law". In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice McReynolds, the Supreme Court stated "the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable. ]"[151] In contrast, Rawle characterizes the second clause of the Second Amendment, which he calls the corollary clause, as a general prohibition against such capricious abuse of government power. [i][152][153], Rawle, long before the concept of incorporation was formally recognized by the courts, or Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, contended that citizens could appeal to the Second Amendment should either the state or federal government attempt to disarm them. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. endstream It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. "[114] Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. "[193] The majority opinion quoted Spooner from The Unconstitutionality of Slavery as saying that the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery. From 1900 to 1920, tug-of-war was an official event at the Summer Olympics. at 625, 128 S.Ct.
Third, the Court referred to "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of `dangerous and unusual weapons.'" 2783. The officers, however, were of a higher quality, responding out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, and generally critical of the rank and file. If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation. [169][170], The second, known as the "sophisticated collective right model", held that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. Ultimately, the Catholic JamesII was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, and his successors, the Protestants WilliamIII and MaryII, accepted the conditions that were codified in the Bill. In 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago extended the prior ruling from federal laws to state and local laws. <> %2QqJiki,. [66] While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the Patriot militia, some have argued that there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense. [243][244][245][246] According Justice John Paul Stevens he was able to persuade Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to ask for some important changes to Justice Scalias opinion, so it was Justice Kennedy, who was needed to secure a fifth vote in Heller,[247] "who requested that the opinion include language stating that Heller should not be taken to cast doubt on many existing gun laws. 8 0 obj According to Picadio, this version was rejected because "it would have given to free blacks the constitutional right to have firearms".[126]. The following year, at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, 12 delegates from five states (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia) met and drew up a list of problems with the current government model. In response to this arms build-up, the British parliament established an embargo of firearms, parts and ammunition against the American colonies. [104][105] Anti-federalists, on the other hand, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. 19 0 obj 8QfEQMG>AemO\oXZ`OsXMQ&`PH%T0m"p[b`)K This similarity is notable because it affirms that the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right.
The Supreme Court also affirmed previous rulings that the Second Amendment ensured the right of individuals to take part in the defending of their liberties by taking up arms in an organized militia. [147] Supporters of this model argued that "although the first clause may describe a general purpose for the amendment, the second clause is controlling and therefore the amendment confers an individual right 'of the people' to keep and bear arms". "[227] The Michigan Court of Appeals 2012 relied on Heller in the case People v. Yanna to state certain limitations on the right to keep and bear arms: In some respects, these limitations are consistent with each other. "Finally, we should note that (contrary to Kates's assertion), Blackstone nowhere suggests that the right to arms derives from 'the common law'. (See also gun control.). endobj Corrections? ?Vu1%*T,HPGB%@'OD`*nme[s-=IR,`B*dLYMCI&QXlJXJ*ZCoGG6=Z1I#deRAX= 1NRC9'#G'Mc47*f3C'&?;ElcIIR1b7%F:4?