No matter how often gun control activists utter the phrase “I support the Second Amendment,” there’s inevitably a “but” that follows and completely negates that self-professed support.
Some anti-gun activists want to repeal the Second Amendment. Many others would rather just ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist. Ruby Goodwin, on the other hand, wants to “complicate” the right to keep and bear arms.
Goodwin, a student at the University of California-Irvine, believes the United States is suffering from an “oversimplification of the Second Amendment and its application in the modern day.” Now, I’m not the product of the University of California system, but from my simple-minded point of view “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” isn’t a complicated concept, even if you want to include the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause about well-regulated militias being necessary to the security of a free state. So what’s Ruby talking about?
At first glance, interpreting the clause seems simple; Americans are allowed to keep and use weapons or form well-regulated militias. But harder questions arise, too. Do the Arms have to be well-regulated, or just the Militia? What is included under the umbrella term “the security of a free State?”
Well, Ruby, since the text of the Second Amendment specifically refers to well-regulated militias, it’s pretty obvious that arms are not included in that phrase. As for “security of a free state,” let’s see what Justice Antonin Scalia had to say in Heller:
The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States as the dissent below argued. Joseph Story wrote in his treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community.” 1 Story §208; see also 3 id., §1890 (in reference to the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause: “The militia is the natural defence of a free country”). It is true that the term “State” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to individual States, but the phrase “security of a free state” and close variations seem to have been terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a “ ‘free country’ ” or free polity. Moreover, the other instances of “state” in the Constitution are typically accompanied by modifiers making clear that the reference is to the several States—“each state,” “several states,” “any state,” “that state,” “particular states,” “one state,” “no state.” And the presence of the term “foreign state” in Article I and Article III shows that the word “state” did not have a single meaning in the Constitution.
So, the security of a free state is akin to the “security of a free people,” which makes sense when read in conjunction with the rest of the Second Amendment.
Goodwin contends that the Second Amendment “does not seem focused on individual self-defense.” Rather, “it seems like a way for Americans to enforce their resistance against a crooked government.”
That’s true, at least to a some degree. Federalist 46 makes it clear that a well armed citizenry, in conjunction with state and local governments, are an inherent check on the establishment and abuses of a tyrannical regime. When we look at contemporaneous protections of the right to keep and bear arms found in state constitutions in the late 18th century, however, it becomes abundantly clear that individual self-defense was a key factor.
Pennsylvania, 1776- That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
Vermont, 1777 – That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Pennsylvania, 1790 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Kentucky, 1792 – That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Ohio, 1802 – That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power.
Mississippi, 1817 – Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State.
Connecticut, 1818 – Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
To be fair, there were a few states without that language in their state constitutions, as well as handful that protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the “common defense.” Clearly, though, the importance of protecting and securing an individual right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense wasn’t unknown to those of the Founding generation and the generation that followed, and that individual rights language can be found in state constitutions adopted in the 19th and 20th centuries as well.
Goodwin argues that in a day and age of nuclear weapons, the Second Amendment’s protections against tyranny are outdated and demilitarization of law enforcement should be the goal.
If federal agents can kill protestors who choose to exercise their gun rights — even as politicians lower firearm regulations in the name of protecting those same rights — the current interpretation of the Second Amendment has failed. It does not protect Americans from the government or from each other. If anything, the division over the Second Amendment further prevents the populus from uniting to defend their rights in the way the Founding Fathers envisioned. Something must change.
The debate over the Second Amendment is not as black-and-white as a choice between unregulated firearm ownership or a total ban on bearing arms. To properly validate the many complex rights of Americans, politicians and voters alike must overcome their biases and examine the issue with the nuance it demands.
There’s a case to be made for demilitarizing police, in my opinion, but that doesn’t exclude or negate our ability to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves. Besides, police are regularly exempted from gun laws the rest of us are expected to follow. I’d much prefer that the citizenry be on an equal footing with the armed agents of the State when it comes to firearms.
We don’t need to ‘complicate” the Second Amendment, and Goodwin’s suggestion sounds, to me anyway, like just another way to avoid or ignore its plain text. States like California, New York, and New Jersey have already done an excellent job of obfuscating our individual rights, and they’re not immune to violent crime or an overreaching government. Instead of making the Second Amendment overly complicated, I suggest we try adhering to its simple statement instead and stop infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
