The Two Clause of the Second Amendment are Wedded

The Second Amendment of the Unite States’ Constitution contains two clauses that are by their nature and their presence in the same amendment, connected.

The Second Amendment is as follows:

“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.”

The first clause states that a well regulated militia is important to the security of a free state. 

Militia, in context of the early years of the forming of the nation, is a quasi-military organization of able bodied people that can be expected to either supplement a standing army in time of need or act as a defensive army against the power of the national government in an attempt to control a state.

Under the Articles of Confederation, a passage instructed individual states to identify and retain able bodied men to be part of the individual state militia and that they were to be minimally equipped with tents, field pieces and arms.

The Articles of Confederation included this line because the authors found that the length of the Revolutionary War had a damping effect on individual state militias. 

The militias lacked in able leadership, became undisciplined, individuals tended to go awal and state and local communities preferred their militia to stay either close to home or at the very least stay within the state.

During the writing of the Constitution the near catastrophic experience from the Revolutionary War and the attempted solution to the problem in the Articles of Confederation was not overlooked or ignored. 

James Madison and many legislators in the 13 colonies noted that the original Constitution that was being considered before them did not support a well regulated and properly equipped militia. 

In their own attempt to shore up the state militias, James Madison and the legislators of the colonies demanded and indeed did place in the Constitution the first clause of the second amendment, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”

Which, of course, brings to light the definition of a “state.”     

First, the term state did not refer to individual states in general.

States, being a geographically defined area of land, were the primary organization of the country at the time and still is today.

The individual states were expected to be a balancing fulcrum for the power of the national government.

But, in this context, the term state in the time period of the country was meant to mean a political organization, that is, a country as we define it today. 

At the time “states,” meaning government, were either of two kinds; a state where the power rested in the people or were the power rested in a monarch.

A “free state”, in this context, was a country where the power rested with the people.

So, for the first clause of the Second Amendment, its meaning is that a militia that is able to muster men that are properly armed and trained is important to a free country, therefore, it must be maintained.

As for the second, it is less complicated but still connected to the first clause.

Again, back to the meanings during the Revolutionary times.  

Money was tight and the burgeoning government at the time could not always be relied on to provide the funding necessary to equip the troops properly that were fighting the English. 

It was accepted, unlike our military now, that if you had your own guns, you were encouraged to bring them for your use.  This alleviated some of the pressure on the short supplies and enable someone who doesn’t have access to their own weapons to have one.

All the guns used by the individual at the time were not military style in the way we know of them now. 

Most guns were used for hunting, or on the frontier of the country to defend against Native American’s whose land was being stolen from them by the European invaders. 

All military style weapons, cannons, mortars and howitzers, were retained by the Army and the state and local militia.

Even the guns that were owned by the military were taken back by the army or the state and local militia for storage to keep them maintained and available.

Here is the important point on this part of the second clause. 

The Constitution at the time, forbid keeping a national standing army. 

There was an understanding that the country in time of need would rely on the state and local militia to fill the void of having no army at ready till a regular army could be mustered. (going back of course to the first clause in the amendment)

So, those that were part of the militia and under its direct control were encouraged to own and maintain their weapons for use in any conflict that might arise.

So, the meaning behind the second clause of the second amendment.  That individuals that are part of the regulated militia are not only encouraged to own their own weapons, but states and local governments must not restrict their ownership for those that are part of the militia.

In my opinion, the two clauses of the second amendment are wedded. 

Weapon ownership can be restricted for those that do not belong to a well-regulated militia organized by the state or local government and the right of the federal government to set standards for the organization and regulation of the militias are not only Constitutional, but necessary.

The First Obligation of Government is the Safety and Security of its People

Governments are formed to do any number of things from mere defense to the total control of the lives of the people that fall under its jurisdiction.

The government of the United States was formed for the reasons stated in the preamble of the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Many of the items in the preamble imply that it was formed for the safety and security of the people that live within its borders.

In fact, the Constitution was written because the legislatures of the 13 colonies sent representatives to Philadelphia to find a solution to the chaos that was developing within each state and between the states under the Articles of Confederation.

The safety and security of the states and the people living in each state was in jeopardy.

At the very beginning of the Constitution, to make the point about providing for the safety and security of the people living with in the United States’ borders, Article One establishes the lawmaking bodies; the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Also, in Article two, the executive branch was formed whose job it is to enforce the laws passed by the House of Representatives, the Senate and signed into law by the president.

In addition to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence also clearly states that the safety and security of the people under its jurisdiction should be the primary functions of government.

It states in the opening of the second paragraph, that, “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are the primary goals of humans. 

The order of the words in the phrase are not in suspect.  It is clear, that the authors meant that their lives were of primary importance to them and to their posterity.    

What ever rights are stated in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence, from religion, privacy, press, voting and the right to bear arms, the primary function of the government of the United States is to enact laws that protect people from harm.  

The obligation stated in the preamble of the Constitution that the United States government provide for the safety and security of the people, translates to a right of safety and security by the people living under its jurisdiction.

Safety and security are rights greater than any other of the rights, expressed or implied, in the Constitution. 

Why gun rights are different than other rights

With the national convention of the National Rifle Association (NRA) this weekend, it is a great time to examine gun rights.  As one of the most powerful special interest groups in Washington and in every state capital, the association gets its perverted way more than not.  It has evolved from an organization that was promoting safety and use of firearms to a “civil rights” group that is fueled by manufactures whose only interest is to sell more guns.

The NRA has it wrong for the most part.  They believe that any regulation of guns is going against what the founders had planned for us.  But, of all the rights we retained in our social contract with one another and with the signing of the Constitution, the right to bear arms is different.  It warrants greater restrictions than others because of the differences.

First, rights retained are not absolute.  If the community has a compelling reason it can restrict a right.  If the exercise of a right by an individual will directly cause harm to someone, the community not only has the right but the compelling responsibility to restrict it. 

Next, all rights have been restricted.  Speech has been restricted by fighting words, pornography and libel.  Assemblies of people can’t restrict the movement of emergency vehicles.  The property we own can’t have structures that may cause harm to the neighbors.  Even the right to face an accuser can be revoked it if is reasonable to believe that the witness’ safety is in grave danger. 

Finally, and perhaps the most important issue, the full exercise of the right to bear arms carries with it a risk that no other right carries.  If someone is shot and killed, the victim can’t stand up and respond.  Yet, if a speech is given that criticizes a politician for his policies the politician can stand up to respond.  If a group of people assemble to protest that same politician’s policy, he can gather another group of people to assemble in support of his policies.  No one is directly harmed.  But, when someone is shot and killed, all rights are lost at that point.

We didn’t give up the right to own weapons, the NRA has that correct.  Many people disagree on the meaning of the second amendment, but in the end, it does provide at the very least the right to own weapons.  But, a right retained doesn’t mean we also didn’t provide the community with the responsibility to insure a safe and peaceful environment.  A community may not prevent ownership of weapons to members in good standing but it does have the right to reasonably restrict the possession and use. 

-----

The NRA's grand conspiracy

Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association told a CPAC gathering in Florida, “It’s all part of a massive conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intention to destroy the Second Amendment.”

LaPierre was talking about the Obama’s administration to take no steps to take guns away from the citizens of the United States. LaPierre thinks that Obama’s lack of action is part of a conspiracy. That his appearance of inaction is so he can say he is for gun rights, and convince voters that he is on their side.

During the last election it was feared that if elected, Obama would move to take guns from the “cold, dead hands” of true Americans, as the gun lobby followers like to say. When he took office, gun sales skyrocketed. People wanted to stock up so they would be weaponized when the black booted goons made guns illegal.

But, since the election, absolutely nothing has happen. Obama has not requested any legislation about outlawing guns. He has not given any policy speeches on how guns have made this society the most violent in history. After the slaughter in Tucson by Jared Lee Loughner, that killed 6 people and wounded another 14 including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a perfect time to call for more gun control, nothing happen.

And, yet, LaPierre seems to think this is Obama’s grand conspiracy to remove guns from the homes of good, upstanding citizens.

LaPierre and the likes of him need a boogieman to stay alive. He needs to stir up some hate for the liberal press, the far left commie in the White House or whoever else LaPierre can point a finger at. Even if the people LaPierre points fingers at are people in position of power that have done nothing to endanger his beloved right to own guns.

We do have a right, of some kind, to bear arms. I do believe that those that signed the Constitution wanted to make sure that we could keep guns in our homes for our safety, for hunting and so that we may respond to a call to arms by our states in times of need. But, it can’t be argued that by guaranteeing the right to bear arms in the Constitution, the signers ever intended to stop congress from enacting any reasonable law about gun safety.

LaPierre would have you believing otherwise. He believes that any law that curtails the ownership or use of guns is unconstitutional. But, who would argue that crazy people, like Loughner, should be able to walk around with a gun strapped to their waist. Obama, instead of moving to place more control on people like him, has done nothing.

LaPierre, where is the grand conspiracy?

-----

Don't follow the leader

Lori Klein, an Arizona State Senate Republican, pointed her “cute” pink pistol at a reporter that was interviewing her and demonstrated how the laser aiming device works by pointing it at the reporter’s chest.  Klein did this while the .380 Ruger, that has no safety, was loaded. 

Let’s follow the leader.  All of us should pull out our guns and start pointing them at people just to show how fun it is.  After all, the leading proponent of the Second Amendment in Arizona did so it must be the right thing to do.

Before anyone thinks that I am a liberal that wants to take away all guns, leaving only criminals with guns, think again.  My father was a police officer and hunter.  He had guns in the house for his profession and his hobby.  I was taught gun safety just like being taught to say please and thank you.  When I was 14 years old I went through the NRA’s gun safety program.  For many years I was a hunter.  I am personally in support of gun ownership, if that is something people want to do.

There is also a little thing called the Constitution.  Regardless of the debate about a militia, it does, in some form, guarantee the right to own guns.  Citizens of any Responsible Community should not be required to give up the right to own guns. 

None of the above means that the right to “bear arms” is absolute.  When the authors of the Constitution wrote in a few of our rights, it was never intended to mean that communities could not place reasonable restrictions on those rights.  The reason we live in a community is to come to terms on the laws that provide for a safe environment.  To allow just any crazy person to have a gun because it is a right is wrong. 

Speaking of crazy people, Senate Klein from Arizona is not only out of line by pointing her gun at the reporter, she should be arrested.  While it is not illegal apparently to point a gun at someone in Arizona (I can’t find where it is anywhere in the country) it could be considered an assault.  The reporter was not acting threatening and was not carry a weapon.  Yet, a loaded gun was pointed at him for no cause other than to allow the Senator to have a little fun with her “cute” pink pistol.  By the way, “cute” is her term.

People follow leaders.  That is just the way humans work.  While some leaders shouldn’t be followed, like Senator Klein, it is certain that someone will do the same thing because the senator did it.  Next time, there may be an unintended firing of the weapon and someone will be dead.  That is why the senator needs to face the consequences of her action.

-----

More guns is not the answer

There is an old and tired logic that says the solution to a problem is more of the same. That logic is often applied by those that are for the unlimited support of the Second Amendment. It is seeing a revival after the shootings in Arizona. Now that we have had a little time to reflect, let’s think about that logic.

Most are aware of the shootings. But to briefly recap, Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people were shot by a lone gunman on January 8, 2011. Representative Giffords was holding a public event at a Safeway Food Stores shopping center in her Arizona district. The gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, has been charged with the shooting and currently being held by Arizona authorities.

The gun of choice for Loughner was a Glock 19. It has a standard magazine size of 15 rounds and brags about its small size that makes it easy to conceal. Loughner was able to fire all the rounds from one magazine and was getting ready to replace it when the second one fell to the ground. An unarmed man managed to grab that magazine. Another unarmed man hit Loughner on the back of the head with a metal folding chair. He was subdued by many other people who where nearby.

The total time of the event before Loughner was subdued was less than 30 seconds.

The argument that is making the rounds is if a “trained, rationale person” had been at the scene with a gun, the number of people that were injured could have been less. That someone could have responded to the event by firing back at Loughner and preventing him from injuring more people. This is an old and tired argument in support of carry laws in the United States.

The truth is, this happen in arguably one of the most conservative states about personally carrying weapons. In fact, Arizona is making it even easier for people to carry guns in public. They just passed legislation that allows people that carry a gun to ignore policy in public places that asked that people not carry a gun. If the public place doesn’t scan for a weapon, it is not against the law to violate the policy. If more guns would have prevented this tragedy, why didn’t it in Arizona?

If someone had been on site that was carrying a gun, it is doubtful the “trained, rational” person could have been able to shoot back before the end of the first clip. By that time, even if the second clip hadn't fell to the ground, the unarmed people around the area would have been able to take him down.

Also, if many other people had a gun, you can be sure, not everyone would have been well trained and rational. In the confusion of the event, just like the confusion that comes from any crisis, people who are carrying might not have seen the entire event so they wouldn’t know who was the bad guy and who was the good guy. Everyone could have been shooting at anything to try and be a hero.

What makes things more difficult to support the logic, Loughner was not concerned about dyeing. There is every reason to believe that he choose such an event to find a bit of glory, no matter how perverted that thinking was. He anticipated going down in gun fire and still continued with his plans.

Finally, Loughner was able to purchase a gun from a local retailer in Arizona after passing a background test. But, Loughner's application to get into the Army failed because of a drug test. Should people that fail drug tests conducted by the Army be allowed to own a gun? He was kicked out of college until he could prove that he was mentally competent, yet he still was able to purchase a gun. Finally, he had been in trouble with the law before. Again, he was still able to purchase a gun. People who have had no trouble with the law and not a blemish on their record can be on a no fly list, yet Loughner was able to purchase a semi automatic hand gun that advertises how easy it is to conceal because of its small size.

For sure, one understanding of the Second Amendment guarantees our right to own a gun. That doesn't mean that right is absolute. A responsible community can place reasonable restrictions against those that abuse any of the rights in the Constitution. The right to carry a gun has very little time between its abuse and the injury that can be inflicted. Therefore, a responsible community can take a harder line restricting this freedom than with others.

The logic of more guns means less injured isn’t true. There are better ways to address this issue that don’t make the problem worse.

-----

Why do you need a silly reason to carry a gun?

Why do you need a silly reason to carry a gun. Why not just say, I want to carry a gun because I want to carry a gun.

GeorgiaCarry.org is suing Georgia over the state’s open carry law. The law states that people can’t carry a gun into a church as well as a few other places. Since 2007 the organization, that was founded to “protect the Second Amendment”, has been fighting cities and counties in Georgia to repeal gun laws. With their sights now on a state law, they claim that the restriction against openly carrying a gun at church restricts their right to exercise their freedom of religion.

Yes, you read that correctly. The group claims that the restriction that prevents the carrying of a gun in church restricts the right to exercise the freedom of religion. They suggest that they would not be able to protect themselves and their families if they don’t have a gun. Therefore, that fear prevents them from going to church.

The Constitution’s Second Amendment does protect the right to bear arms. It states:

• “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.”

According to the debates on the Constitution that swirled around at the time, the authors were concerned that a strong military could be used against the country’s citizens. That is partly why they wrote in the document that funding for the military should not be longer than two years. The country, though, still needed to be defended in times of crisis. The response was to ensure that each state had a militia that was armed and trained. Yes, of course, they also knew at the time, many people needed a gun for hunting and protecting themselves from the “savages” that lived on the frontier.

The news reports don’t say why Georgia felt they needed a law that restricts the open carry of weapons in churches. Communities need a real reason that is supported by evidence to enact any law. Since the arguments made by those that would like the law declared unconstitutional were not about why Georgia made the law, it is hoped that the state had a solid reason.

The issues here are about both the Constitution and a reasonable response of a community to a concern it has. The Constitution does clearly state a right to own a weapon. The Georgia law didn’t disregard the constitution all together by outlawing the ownership of guns. Chicago and Washington, D. C. tried that. The gun ownership laws in those cities were struck down by the Supreme Court.

That doesn’t mean that congress or a legislature in a state can’t prescribe reasonable guidelines for the right to carry a gun. A community, in this case the people of Georgia, through there rightfully elected legislature, has the right to say that even though we can own guns, we just can’t carry or use them in situations where there is a perceived danger. Would anyone argue that we can own a gun and fire them where we want? Or, that we should be able to carry a grenade launcher into a bank?

If GeorgiaCarry.org thinks that people should be able to carry guns when they go to church and Georgia can’t demonstrate a reason they should not be able to, okay. But to say that it prevents people from exercising their freedom of religion, is a none argument.

Georgia didn’t make the ownership of weapons illegal. An over reaching response to any concern by the community would be to make guns illegal to own under all circumstances. According to the Constitution, people do have the right to own guns. But no right is absolute and responsible communities can prescribe reasonable restrictions on any right.

-----

Gun rights should be the same every where

In New Jersey, a man from Utah man, Greg Revell, was traveling through a New Jersey airport on his way to somewhere else. In his baggage he had an unloaded hand gun. He told the airport security where he was coming from about the weapon when he checked his bags. He was allowed to check his bags and was just changing planes in New Jersey. His connecting flight was cancelled, so he retrieved his bags and spent the night at a hotel. The next morning he arrives at the airport and does the honest thing and tells airport police about his gun. He is then arrested and spends ten days in jail.

The Supreme Court will decide on Wednesday to hear his case.

If the Fourteenth amendment did anything, it made this one country. Until the amendment was ratified, each state operated nearly independently of all other states and of the federal government. At the time, 36 states had 36 different sets of laws. Some states went as far to not just violate the rights of individuals, but to take them completely away. The Supreme Court supported the right of states to take such action because the Constitution, according to the court, applied only to the Federal government and not to the states. If it hadn’t been for the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, they may never have been given back.

It was the intent of the Fourteenth amendment to ensure that the rights of any person in the country was the same as any other person. That just as the Federal government must respect the rights of people so must each state. This passed all the way to local governments because they were set up by states.

Gun ownership is a right as documented in the Constitution. Reasonable regulations can be adopted to ensure that the ownership and use of a gun doesn’t harm anyone, but it can’t be denied. But, there are fifty three different sets of regulations in the country about gun ownership. That includes all fifty states, D.C and Costa Rica. Perhaps more it you count other protected lands and other jurisdictions.

It sounds like Greg Revell hales from a state that allows him to own and carry a gun. After all, if he was not legal, why would he say anything to airport police. Also, Revell was allowed to check his luggage with the gun in the baggage in Utah. The gun didn’t get him into trouble until he spent the night in New Jersey. Of course, that one night turned into ten and now a gun charge on his record.

It is time we federalize gun laws to protect the rights of people that own guns in every state. We are no longer fifty states (or 36 at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment) that operate independently of each other. The rights of every person in this country should be protect from the patch work of laws that may or may not allow an individual who is legal in one state to be legal in another.

Like immigration and plenty of other issues, gun laws needed to be apply to all in the country and not just each state. It is time to move in that direction so we can all live without fear of our rights.

-----

Pontiac Man Challenges City on Right to Carry Handgun

Ben Shattuck of Pontiac carries his side arm with him in open view. He carried it with him when he made a statement about Pontiac’s gun law to the city council. It certainly is his right, but not necessary.


In a Responsible Community we did not give up the right to own weapons. But, if the community has a compelling reason to restrict gun possession and use, then it has the responsibility to act in a reasonable and limited manner to protect the community. This means, with some exceptions, it can act unilaterally from any higher governmental body. It could require a permit to even carry the weapon in the open as Shattuck does, or make it illegal to carry a weapon anywhere in public.

This is where the responsible community parts with the constitution. But since we live in a community that has an excellent constitution, we must stand by its standards. That doesn’t mean that the understanding of the document can be clear at all times or that we can all agree with that understanding. We must search for middle ground.

The Second Amendment has wide interpretation across the political spectrum. One viewpoint says that individuals have the right to bear arms in a limited way because of the statement about a well regulated militia. Others believe in a more open understanding, that individuals have the right to bear arms regardless of their membership in a well regulated militia. In either extreme, it is clear that individuals have at least some right to own and bear arms. So Ben Shattuck does have the right to own firearms in his home and on his person with reasonable restrictions.

But, no right is absolute even in an open interpretation. The Constitution never meant to guarantee any right beyond the point of safety. Government, with compelling reasons, can and should restrict ownership and use of firearms. Some examples might be requiring training on use and safety, surrendering the weapon when requested by a police officer or proper holstering.

The current interpretation of the Constitution does allow Mr. Shattuck to own a weapon and carry his weapon around with him. The City of Pontiac can’t stop him from owning but it should be able to restrict its use for compelling reasons.