The Second Amendment: Intent

[Ken]

A quote from the above (emphasis added):



The bolded part would not be possible to achieve if citizens were restricted from having the same type of weaponry that is available to the army. In other words, the "well regulated militia" intent includes the "universal availability of weapons without restriction" as a precondition. Following the OP, I'm just speaking of the original intent here.

Yes, but the text discusses the use of arms, not the personal possession of arms. The National Guard, for example, has well equipped armories that contain weaponry equivalent to what regular army units have. But they are under lock and key and “well regulated”. National Guard members don’t store tanks and heavy machine guns in their homes and garages. Armories were actually a common feature in the early years of the Republic. Storing of military weapons in people’s homes was not. Militia members didn’t store cannon, howitzers, or mortars or other such arms in their homes. The state maintained them in armories.

Small arms like handguns and rifles are of little use in actual war when invading armies have armored columns, artillery, missiles, attack helicopters, bombers, and the like.

So are you arguing that the original intent was not aimed at the "personal possession" of arms?

I’m pointing out that the original authors of the Constitution spent a great deal of time discussing the meaning and purpose of a “well regulated militia” and virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms. Which at that time were entirely different from the weapons of today anyway. An 18 year old in 1789 couldn’t have taken a muzzle loader into a school and killed 20 people in less than a minute like today. We are talking about entirely different weapons.

I don’t advocate the outlawing of firearms. I’ve owned many of them in my life. I do support increased regulation of firearms. I see nothing in the Second Amendment that prohibits reasonable regulation of firearm ownership, sale, and use.

[Robert]

Alexander Hamilton tells us what he thought it meant in the Federalist No. 29. He was one of the authors of and ratifiers of the Constitution and original Bill of Rights

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-paper ... r-25493342

He focused on the "well regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment, not the universal availability of weapons without restriction that seems a more modern interpretation.

Hamilton discusses state-regulated citizen militias in contrast to a standing Federal army and goes into detail about what they meant by "well regulated". The modern counterpart is probably the volunteer National Guard (weekend warriors) contrasted against the professional standing Armed Forces.

Of which included Galleys with as many canons as could be housed. Privateers were allowed to have as much fire power as the state. The National Guard are not privateers. They are a branch of the Army. They are no longer a militia.

The concept that helped defeat the British was so many of the citizenry was armed. They tried to remove their arms, but that did not end well. Knowing this, the framers added this because of the knowledge that a well armed citizenry made it very hard to overthrow said citizenry, internally or externally.

Viewing the 2nd Amendment with the 10th is important also. The framers were coming from a place where the "crown" or ruling class were dictating their rights. The framers clearly saw the rights as God given and used the Constitution and Bill of Rights to LIMIT government. All of the Bill of Rights were about limiting government and empowering the citizenry, thus the name. The 2nd Amendment is the same. It does not limit the citizens but the government.

[joey_the_ox]

Yes, but the text discusses the use of arms, not the personal possession of arms. The National Guard, for example, has well equipped armories that contain weaponry equivalent to what regular army units have. But they are under lock and key and “well regulated”. National Guard members don’t store tanks and heavy machine guns in their homes and garages. Armories were actually a common feature in the early years of the Republic. Storing of military weapons in people’s homes was not. Militia members didn’t store cannon, howitzers, or mortars or other such arms in their homes. The state maintained them in armories.

Small arms like handguns and rifles are of little use in actual war when invading armies have armored columns, artillery, missiles, attack helicopters, bombers, and the like.

So are you arguing that the original intent was not aimed at the "personal possession" of arms?

I’m pointing out that the original authors of the Constitution spent a great deal of time discussing the meaning and purpose of a “well regulated militia” and virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms. Which at that time were entirely different from the weapons of today anyway. An 18 year old in 1789 couldn’t have taken a muzzle loader into a school and killed 20 people in less than a minute like today. We are talking about entirely different weapons.

I don’t advocate the outlawing of firearms. I’ve owned many of them in my life. I do support increased regulation of firearms. I see nothing in the Second Amendment that prohibits reasonable regulation of firearm ownership, sale, and use.

Ken, most of what you say here has to do with current conditions, while the OP (and my question) was about the original intent. Whether or not that intent can or should be implemented today is a different question.

[joey_the_ox]

I’m pointing out that the original authors of the Constitution spent a great deal of time discussing the meaning and purpose of a “well regulated militia” and virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms.

This is the only part from your reply that deals with original intent. They spent "virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms" apart from saying "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"? Sounds like personal possession.

[Robert]

This is the only part from your reply that deals with original intent. They spent "virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms" apart from saying "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"? Sounds like personal possession.

Bearing arms included canons and ships. Not just muskets. Ships were a key part of the militia at the time.

I personally want a Tator Tank. I will post a video of it in the funny thread so I do not derail here.

[HondurasKeiser]

This is the only part from your reply that deals with original intent. They spent "virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms" apart from saying "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"? Sounds like personal possession.

Bearing arms included canons and ships. Not just muskets. Ships were a key part of the militia at the time.

I personally want a Tator Tank. I will post a video of it in the funny thread so I do not derail here.

Citation? I am not saying you're wrong...I've simply never read anything from the time about the need for personal ownership of cannons and gunships.

[Ken]

I’m pointing out that the original authors of the Constitution spent a great deal of time discussing the meaning and purpose of a “well regulated militia” and virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms.

This is the only part from your reply that deals with original intent. They spent "virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms" apart from saying "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"? Sounds like personal possession.

It might sound like that to you. But it doesn’t actually say that.

“People” is used plurality in the Second Amendment and throughout US law the word is frequently used to talk about collective rights and collective action, not personal. And personal “possession” and personal “ownership” is not also mentioned.

A perfectly valid alternative interpretation is that they were talking about the they collective right of a people’s militia (like the National Guard) to keep and bear arms for purpose of national defense in lieu of a Federal standing army.

Different courts and different judges have come down on different sides of this issue over the years. The current conservative SCOTUS majority takes your view for the most part. But that doesn’t mean it is the only possible interpretation. Many judges and Supreme Court justices have come to the opposite conclusion.

In any event, I have a hard time believing that the founders intended that there be no regulation or restriction on psychopathic 18 year olds obtaining weapons of war to gun down children in a classroom. I think they would be horrified that their language is being used to defend the laws (or lack of laws) that make that a regular and reoccurring event.

[joey_the_ox]

I’m pointing out that the original authors of the Constitution spent a great deal of time discussing the meaning and purpose of a “well regulated militia” and virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms.

This is the only part from your reply that deals with original intent. They spent "virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms" apart from saying "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"? Sounds like personal possession.

It might sound like that to you. But it doesn’t actually say that.

“People” is used plurality in the Second Amendment and throughout US law the word is frequently used to talk about collective rights and collective action, not personal. And personal “possession” and personal “ownership” is not also mentioned.

A perfectly valid alternative interpretation is that they were talking about the they collective right of a people’s militia (like the National Guard) to keep and bear arms for purpose of national defense in lieu of a Federal standing army.

Different courts and different judges have come down on different sides of this issue over the years. The current conservative SCOTUS majority takes your view for the most part. But that doesn’t mean it is the only possible interpretation. Many judges and Supreme Court justices have come to the opposite conclusion.

In any event, I have a hard time believing that the founders intended that there be no regulation or restriction on psychopathic 18 year olds obtaining weapons of war to gun down children in a classroom. I think they would be horrified that their language is being used to defend the laws (or lack of laws) that make that a regular and reoccurring event.

So in the first amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"), is "people" referring to a "collective right" to the freedoms listed or a personal right? Or how about the fourth amendment? etc.

Your last paragraph again jumps to current conditions. You might be right about what they would think when presented with the current situation or you might not. But the question at hand is one of original intent.

[Ernie]

This is the only part from your reply that deals with original intent. They spent "virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms" apart from saying "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"? Sounds like personal possession.

Bearing arms included canons and ships. Not just muskets. Ships were a key part of the militia at the time.

So you think that if the Bill of Rights was being written today, with the same intent that the founders had, citizens would be allowed to own artillery, kamikaze drones, anti-tank missiles, or any other military equipment, and could use such weapons should the country or state be attacked?

[Ken]

This is the only part from your reply that deals with original intent. They spent "virtually no time discussing personal possession of firearms" apart from saying "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"? Sounds like personal possession.

It might sound like that to you. But it doesn’t actually say that.

“People” is used plurality in the Second Amendment and throughout US law the word is frequently used to talk about collective rights and collective action, not personal. And personal “possession” and personal “ownership” is not also mentioned.

A perfectly valid alternative interpretation is that they were talking about the they collective right of a people’s militia (like the National Guard) to keep and bear arms for purpose of national defense in lieu of a Federal standing army.

Different courts and different judges have come down on different sides of this issue over the years. The current conservative SCOTUS majority takes your view for the most part. But that doesn’t mean it is the only possible interpretation. Many judges and Supreme Court justices have come to the opposite conclusion.

In any event, I have a hard time believing that the founders intended that there be no regulation or restriction on psychopathic 18 year olds obtaining weapons of war to gun down children in a classroom. I think they would be horrified that their language is being used to defend the laws (or lack of laws) that make that a regular and reoccurring event.

So in the first amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"), is "people" referring to a "collective right" to the freedoms listed or a personal right? Or how about the fourth amendment? etc.

Your last paragraph again jumps to current conditions. You might be right about what they would think when presented with the current situation or you might not. But the question at hand is one of original intent.

That’s my point. I think the original intent was the establishment of well-regulated state militias as an alternative to a Federal standing army. It wasn’t to unleash the unregulated trade in firearms such that psychopaths with no connection to any regulated militia could have unrestricted access to weapons of war to unleash on their communities.