If that view is to receive legal effect, it must be in spite of the Second Amendment, not because of it. The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.
Even the term "people" -- the most basic catch-all -- has limitations. One implication of this emphasis on the virtuous citizen is that the right to arms does not preclude laws disarming the unvirtuous i. What type of security was referred to here?
Mark Thompson wrote that, apart from determining the succession, the English Bill of Rights did "little more than set forth certain points of existing laws and simply secured to Englishmen the rights of which they were already posessed [ sic ].
If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor. First, as I have suggested elsewhere, prediction of Supreme Court decisions does little to validate particular theories, given the complexities involved.
Fisher Ames[ edit ] The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.
As Stephen Halbrook puts it: Realizing that it takes a theory to kill a theory, they came up with one of their own. Constitution was officially ratified, James Madison proposed the Second Amendment as a way to empower these state militias. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day.
What kind of rights? Yet we do not generally require proof of efficacy where other Constitutional rights are concerned, so it seems a bit unfair to demand it solely in the case of the Second Amendment.
But to keep and bear arms for what? In Aymette, the defendant--like those Rambo wannabes who are responsible for the term "gun nut" today--claimed that the Tennessee provision gives to every man the right to arm himself in any manner he may choose, however unusual or dangerous the weapons he may employ, and, thus armed, to appear wherever he may think proper, without molestation or hindrance, and that any law regulating his social conduct, by restraining the use of any weapon or regulating the manner in which it shall be carried, is beyond the legislative competency to enact, and is void.
City of Chicagowhich was decided in As a result, some Patriots created their own militias that excluded the Loyalists and then sought to stock independent armories for their militias. Nor is it particularly consistent with either the language or the history of the Constitution.
The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. What does it mean for one to be "well regulated"? State governments are not creations of the federal government, nor is the federal government the creature of the states.
As Standard Model scholars point out, this makes any argument that the Second Amendment merely protects the National Guard untenable. Rather, the National Guard was created in response to the perceived shortcomings of the militia as an offensive force; there were repeated incidents in which the militia refused to invade Canada, Mexico, and various other locations, or in which federal attempts to so employ the militia were held illegal.
Although the ideal and function of the jury are based on the kinds of notions of universal representation and service that also underlie the militia, no one familiar with the actual operation of the jury system thinks that it is either universal or representative.
As the interned American citizens of Japanese descent learned, the Bill of Rights provided them with little protection when it was needed.When I joined the court inthat holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities.
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. ~ Second Amendment. The US Supreme Court in began a major reexamination of the right to keep and bear arms.
How well do you know the Second Amendment? Take our quiz. The Second Amendment was right when it was passed, and we still need it today.
Tennessee Law Review; A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, by Glenn Harlan Reynolds. While the Second Amendment identifies an individual right, it does so with a public purpose in mind.Download