• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another Second Amendment win in California

As far as determining what the Second Amendment right was intended to recognize, the text of the various state's Constitutions Second Amendment sections ratified contemporaneously can be reviewed for context.

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm

Pennsylvania:

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."[8]

Vermont:

Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution.[15] It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."[16]

North Carolina:

Like Pennsylvania, North Carolina adopted an arms right in 1776.[18] The North Carolina Bill of Rights reads in part, "[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."[19]

We can also refer to Dred Scott v. Sandford,1856:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC12

" It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."

Pretty clear to me that self defense was the intended right recognized by the Second. Since SCOTUS has ruled on that point in the affirmative in two separate cases, this isn't just hot air or propaganda.

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.

It's been a long time since I read the Federalist Papers, so I'm not going to cite specific passages, but something I found interesting was the usage of the word "militia". The Federalist Papers were a series of articles by (IIRC) James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, published under the pseudonym "Publius" advocating the ratification of the Constitution. They did not address the Second Amendment, and, in fact, argued against the necessity of adding a "Bill of Rights" to to the Constitution (incorrectly, IMO). However, it was quite clear to me from context, that they used the word "militia" to mean, not an organized military body, but the armed citizens of the country. To be fair, the term "militia" at the time was also applied to military forces under the control of the states (what is now called the "National Guard").

Those who argue that the Second Amendment does not grant an individual right to "keep and bear arms" seem to assume that the second meaning of the word "militia" applies. I believe this is an incorrect interpretation.
 

Back
Top Bottom