ARKANSAS SPORTSMAN : Historical context of Second Amendment validated
Posted on Sunday, July 6, 2008
Several years ago, I had a lively discussion with a co-worker at the Missouri Conservation Department about the Second Amendment.
She argued that firearms should be registered, and that gun owners should be licensed.
“Only if you’ll agree that you should also have a license to buy a newspaper, a book or a magazine, or to speak in public,” I responded.
This puzzled her.
“After all,” I continued, “it is a fact that every war, every revolution, every assassination and almost every riot in history was inspired or incited by the written and spoken word. The sword and the gun were merely the means to an end. So, if you want to restrict the right to bear arms, you also have to restrict the right to free speech and expression. They are rights of equal standing, and the Constitution guarantees equal protection for them all.” Last week, in a 5-4 decision that was too close for my comfort, the United States Supreme Court validated my position by ruling that the Second Amendment does indeed guarantee an individual right to bear arms. District of Columbia v. Heller was only the court’s fourth major decision on the Second Amendment in more than 200 years, but it is the only one that affirms the amendment’s original intent.
One needn’t be an attorney to understand the simple meaning of the Second Amendment, but it does help to understand the history behind it. The point of contention has always been the prefatory clause, which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State …” Those who argued that the Second Amendment is a collective right interpret this phrase to mean that the right to bear arms extends only to active duty in a militia, or its modern equivalent, the National Guard. The National Guard is a government entity, which would make the right to bear arms a government right. That interpretation is faulty.
The forerunner of the American militia actually originated in Great Britain, beginning with the Anglo-Saxon military establishment of Alfred the Great, around 870 A. D. It was called a fyrd and contained three divisions. The central division consisted of a small, professional unit that served as the king’s house guard. The select fyrd was a larger force composed of civilians who drilled regularly and were paid while on duty. That would be the National Guard equivalent.
Finally, there was the general fyrd, composed of every ablebodied male in the kingdom. They were required to arm themselves at their own expense. They constituted a formidable body that the king could muster on short notice to repel an external threat.
The founding fathers envisioned a citizen army composed of a privately armed population to defend the nation against invaders. It is the same model that Switzerland has used to discourage invasion for hundreds of years, and the definition exists in American law. U. S. Code, Title 10, Chapter 13, affirms this model and defines the unorganized militia, “which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.” It further defines the militia as every able-bodied male between the ages of 17-45.
Having recently secured independence from the British crown, the founding fathers were also very sensitive to potential abuses from the government they created. The Constitution established a system of checks and balances between the three branches of the federal government, and the Bill of Rights enumerates the rights of the states and citizens. The Federalist Papers clearly show that the framers intended for an armed populace to be an omnipresent check against the power of the federal government.
Also, the notion that the right to bear arms is a collective right is inconsistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees individual rights. We have an individual right to free speech, free assembly, privacy and free exercise of religion. We have an individual right to a trial by a jury of our peers, and we have an individual right against illegal search and seizure. To insist that the right to bear arms is collective in that context is a non sequitur.
Freedom of speech, expression, assembly, privacy and exercise of religion are the pillars of a free society. The right to access the courts and rights of equality are the pillars of a just society. The right to bear arms is the buttress that supports all the other pillars. Without No. 2, the others would exist at the whim of despots and demagogues.
It just so happens that America’s sporting heritage is a Second Amendment product, as is the world’s most successful model of wildlife conservation. Hunters and shooters fund the Wildlife Restoration Act exclusively through an excise tax on the sale of hunting equipment, firearms and ammunition. However, it’s a mistake to assume the Second Amendment is only about hunting. It’s about freedom.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
