KJD Firearms Training

What Does the Second Amendment say?

The Second Amendment states:

"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."

The following information is taken from the book "The Founder's Second Amendment" by Steven P. Halbrook, copyright 2008.

To fully understand any document, especially one written over 200 years ago, it is necessary to have some understanding of the times and culture in which it was written.

The framers of the Constitution were educated men who selected their words carefully. The  Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) were added to the Constitution in 1791. Around that time, the prominent federalist, Noah Webster was working on "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language" -- it was published in 1806. There is little doubt that the writers of the Constitution were familar with Webster's work. It's not surprising that in 1828, Webster's "An American Dictionary of the English Language" was adopted as the standard by Congress and the American people; even becoming the accepted norm in England. The meaning of the Constitution's terminology may be discovered in the Mr. Webster's work.

"The substantive guarantee is 'the right of the people' which can mean only individual rights, not state powers. ...Only individuals have 'rights' while the United States and states have 'powers'." Steven P. Halbrook, "The Founder's Second Amendment p.323

Webster defined "right" in part:

• Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. ...Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal and public.

Although the term "State' rights" came into use in the early republic, the constitutional text shuns that usage. As the above definition demonstrates, "the people" means individuals, and only individuals have "rights"

The term "the" used twice in the phrase "the right of the people" is important. The term "the right" expresses a pre-existing right, not a new right invented for the Bill of Rights. Likewise, "the people" refers to population at large. It does not mean some of the people appointed by the states. Nor does it mean a specific group of people such as the people in the Militia.

"It would be rather curious if  'the people' means only such persons as the government selects. To suggest that 'the right of the poeople' means only a command issued by a government to persons appointed by the government demeans the very nature of a bill of rights" Steven P. Halbrook, p.326.

The Second Amendment refers to the right to 'keep' arms as well as to 'bear' arms. Webster definded 'keep' in part as:

   1. To hold; to retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; as, to keep a house or a farm....

2. To have in custody for security or preservation....

3. To preserve; to retain

Webster's following further definition seems particularly apropos to the right to keep arms: "To have in the house...."

The right to 'keep' arms is a liberty an individual would exercise. This is borne out by Sameuel Adams' proposal in the Massachusetts convention 'That the said Constitution be never construed to authorise Congress...to prevent the preople of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms....'

What 'arms' could the people keep and bear? Accourding to Webster, 'arms' are 'weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body'. Citing Blackstone's Commentaries, Webster noted: "In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another".

So even though these definitions of 'arms' signify firearms carried by hand, Webster added that "fire arms, are such as may be chared with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, &c." No doubt the writters of the Constituion had in mind the kinds of firearms that General Gage confiscated from Boston's civilians and that militia acts required: muskets, shotguns, pistols, bayonets, and swords.

During these challenging times as the Constitution was being written, Webster said that the people were sufficiently armed to defeat any standing army that could be raised, implying that they had similar arms. However, the words 'keep and bear arms' suggest that the right includes such hand-held arms as a person could "bear," such as muskets, flowling pieces, pistols, and swords, and not cannon and other heavy guns that a person could not carry or wear.

  

  

 

 

 

 

 

The Second Amendment - A Bit of Background

"A Government resting on a minority, is an aristocracy not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical (and) physical force against it, without a standing Army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."  These are the words of James Madison and capture the reason for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which he himself helped draft.

What are the origins of the Second Amendment and why are these origins important? Most Americans know that our founding fathers were educated men who were familiar with British common law and specifically the writings of Sir William Blackstone. Sir William Blackstone (10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780) was an English judge / jurist and professor who produced the historical and analytic treatise on the Common Law entitled Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in four volumes over 1765–1769. Those years (1765-1769) were times of upheaval and unrest in the American colonies as Britian instituted numersous taxes and prohibitions on the colonies which contradicted some of the principles of Blackstone's Common Law. What made is so ironic and annoying to the founding fathers was these very principles were adaped by the English Parlament for the English people and the colonists were British subjects supposedly entitled to the same rights.

 But we're getting a little ahead. Blackstone's Common Law were not something Sir William thought up on his own. His writings are based on the the English Bill of Rights passed by Parliament in 1689 after the "Glorious Revolution" - the overthrow of monarchy rule of King James II. It can be argued that James's overthrow began modern English parliamentary democracy; never since has the monarch held absolute power, and the Bill of Rights has become one of the most important documents in the political history of Britain. The Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament in December 1689. It was a re-statement in statuatory form of the Declaration of Rights presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It enumerates certain rights to which subjects and permanent residents of a constitutional monarchy were thought to be entitled in the late 17th century, asserting subjects' right to petition the monarch, as well as to have arms in defence. It also sets out—or, in the view of its drafters, restates—certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in parliament. The English Bill of Rights 1689 inspired in large part the United States Bill of Rights.

Let's get back to the Pre-Revolution colonies. Below I quote from a great book titled "The Founder's Second Amendment" and subtitled "Origins of the Right to Bear Arms" by Stephen P. Halbrook. Below is the link to Amazon for more information on Mr. Halbrook's book.

http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Second-Amendment-Origins-Right/dp/1566637929/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281642912&sr=8-1-catcorr

"In an article he signed "E.A.", Samuel Adams published perhaps the most remorable analysis of the right to keep and bear arms in the pre-Revolutionary era. He recalled the absolute English monarchs, with their doctrines of nonresistance and divine right..."

Note: The Divine Right of Kings is a political and religious doctrine of royal absolutism. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including the church. According to this doctrine, since only God can judge an unjust king, the king can do no wrong. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute heresy.

"Quoting freely from William Blackstone, Adams assessed the results of the Glorious Revolution of 1688:

At the revolution, the British Constituion was again restor'd to its original principles, declared in the bill of rights; which was afterward pass'd into a law and stands as a bulwark to the natural rights of subjects. "To vindicate these rights, says Mr. Blackstone, when actually violated or attack'd, the subjects of England are entitled first to the regular administraition and free course of justice in the cours of law -- next to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for redress of grievances - and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence." These he calls "auxiliary subordinate rights", which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property": And that of having arms for their defence he tells us is "a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,  when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." -- How little do those persons attend to the rights of the constitution, if they know anything about them, who find fault with a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defence at any time; but more especially, when they have reason to fear, there would be a necessity of the means of self preservation agains the violence of oppresion.

The individual right to have arms for self-defense was a bulwark to guarantee personal security and liberty. This right extended not just to individual preservation but also to collective resistance to oppression." End of quote from Mr. Halbrook's book.

When the government does not listen to the will of the people who elected them, then the people have a natural right of resistance for self-preservation. We are, I believe, at a critical juncture in our nation's history. This government ignores the voice of the people just as the English Parliament ignored the unjust taxes and restrictions imposed on the colonies.  It is very obvious that this government is pushing our nation toward solicalism. Ours is a democratic nation and it is time for the people of this land to take back their government as "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."