Exploring the Constitution, Part 21:
The Second Amendment and a Well Regulated Militia
© 2000 by David W. Neuendorf
George Washington said of the right to keep and bear
arms that it is "next in importance to the Constitution itself as
the 'American people's liberty teeth.'" Thus, the Second Amendment
stands as the bulwark to protect the rights guaranteed by the rest of
the Constitution: "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." That amendment will be the topic of this,
the 21st installment in the series on the Constitution.
Most gun control proponents today maintain that the
first clause of the Second Amendment negates the "right of the
people to keep and bear arms." They argue that the militia clause
shows the intent of the amendment to be a guarantee to the states of the
right to maintain an armed force such as the National Guard. It is
therefore important to examine the meaning of a "well regulated
Militia."
First we should look at what the Framers of the
Constitution meant when they referred to a "militia." George
Mason, widely regarded as the Father of the Bill of Rights, defined it
thus: "They consist now of the whole people, except a few public
officers." A more specific definition current at the time of the
founding was all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms.
The purpose of the militia was not only to
defend American territory from invasion, but also to protect the
Constitutional system from a runaway federal government. During the debate
over ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton argued
(Federalist No. 29) that the people's liberty would be safe under the new
arrangement, because "...if circumstances should at any time oblige
the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be
formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of
citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms,
who stand ready to defend their rights..."
Hamilton was, of course, referring to the
militia. This brings us to the qualifying phrase, "well
regulated." At the time of the framing of the Constitution, and
in this context, that phrase would have meant "trained in military
discipline and use of arms." The vision of the Framers was that the
members of the militia (the armed populace) would be organized in small
military units for the purpose of training, and occasionally for actual
military use. Each member would be expected to supply his own arms, which
would be made possible by the recognition of "the right of the people
to keep and bear arms."
Congress, according to Article I, Section
8, has the mandate to "provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States..." The "Authority
of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by
Congress" is reserved to the states.
For a long time Congress attempted to carry
out this responsibility through such institutions as the Civilian
Marksmanship Program. This agency provided low cost infantry weapons to
individuals, and in various ways encouraged development of military skills
among civilians (i.e., the militia). Attacks by gun control advocates have
intimidated Congress into abdicating their responsibility in this area in
recent years.
Clearly the Framers of the Constitution
intended a well-armed and martially educated population to be the backbone
of our national defense. They also intended that such a population would
be a guarantee against the establishment of a federal tyranny. We'll
elaborate on that theme in the next installment.
Return
to Dave Neuendorf's Home Page
Please feel free to respond to our columns
via email to me or letters to the
editor of the Aurora Journal-Press at Register Publications, 126 W. High
St., Lawrenceburg, IN 47025.
http://www.seidata.com/~neusys/colm0125.html |
