I like gardening. I'm not as expert at it as some people, so on occasion I look up information about gardening. There are several sources that I can go to. I look at gardening websites, books, or pamphlets. Sometimes I read the labels on gardening products or I talk to more experienced gardeners to learn about gardening. Usually I count on literature because great things have been done over time and many learned things have been documented regarding agriculture and gardening. If I want to know which gardening tool to use for a job, I can look it up in a gardening book and find out which tool to use. I look in a document about gardening to get answers about gardening.
My wife sews. She sometimes asks experienced people about techniques and tools. To help her learn how to sew she took a sewing class. She also bought books about sewing. She has a manual for her sewing machine that tells her how the machine works. When she needs to know which needles to use or which technique to use, she refers to documents about sewing.
As with almost any hobby or occupation, when questions arise regarding tools or techniques you consult a specialized source dedicated to the topic of the question. I would not look in my wife's sewing book to learn about gardening. She would not look in a gardening book to learn about sewing. Neither of us would look in the Constitution of the United States for answers to our gardening or sewing questions. That document was not written about gardening or sewing. It was written about government.
If I have a question about government or the legality or illegality of something in the U.S. then the Constitution is the place to look for guidance. It isn't good for anything else because it is a document that was written to define the framework of the U.S. government. The authors were not writing about gardening or sewing. They were writing about what the government would and would not do. They were writing about checks and balances. They were writing about government.
The three branches of government provide checks and balances to each other, such that no one branch can wield complete power over the people. I personally think that the reason they did not want any single branch to wield complete power over the people is because it would be too easy for a person or group of people to usurp and misuse that power. They wanted to prevent tyranny. The founding fathers knew that the checks and balances between the three branches of government would help prevent totalitarian tyranny. In addition to the checks and balances provided by the three branches of government, the founding fathers decided to put in one final failsafe against tyranny. It is explained in the second amendment to the Constitution. It reads in its entirety 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.
What is the final check and balance to the government? We are. If the checks and balances of the three branches of government fail to prevent tyranny, then the final check against it is us. In the unlikely event that all three branches come under the unchangeable control or influence of a single person or group they still don't have complete power over any given state or the masses in general. In that event the only thing to prevent absolute totalitarianism is us. In such a crisis the federal government only has as much power over the states or the masses as they can enforce. I argue that they could only enforce their rule if they had a substantial military advantage. The general population is so much larger than the federal military population that the only way of having a significant military advantage would be if the masses were not armed. Otherwise it would be impossible. The federal government would be too far outnumbered.
Is the Militia then just rag tag militant mobs? Some people think so, but I do not. Rag tag militants are not "well regulated" and mobs do not contribute "to the security of a free State".
Is the Militia mentioned in the second amendment referring to the armed forces of the federal government? No. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution names the president as commander in chief of the army and navy. An army is a group of armed persons, hence the name. So, Article II already gave the federal government the authority to have weapons. No amendment was needed to accomplish that. It was already in the Constitution.
Is the Militia mentioned in the second amendment referring to a federal militia? No. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explains the function of Congress and reads in part:
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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Militias are state military rather than federal military. Article I, Section 8 states that even when a part of a state militia is being employed on federal government tasks, those militias are still under their state chosen officers and training. Also note that Article I, Section 8 already gave Militias the right to arms. No amendment was needed to give authority to state Militias to be armed. They already had that authority because of this section in the Constitution.
It is clear that the Militia mentioned is not the federal armed forces and it is my opinion that it is referring to state militaries rather than rag-tag mobs. Both the federal government and state militaries had already been authorized by the Constitution to bear arms before the second amendment was passed. Prior to the passing of the second amendment, there was no Constitutional statement as to who would keep the arms of the Militia while not in use. Would it be the federal military or the state military that would keep the arms? The constitution did not address that question. Some people think that the second amendment answers that question by saying that the states or the state militias are supposed to keep the Militia's arms and that the federal government has no authority to disarm them. This is a reasonable and logical interpretation.
Some people interpret "the people" to mean state governments rather than the federal government. Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 refer to personal rights rather than state rights. Read them and see. Amendments 9 and 10 could reasonably be interpreted to refer to state rights rather than personal liberties. Suppose for the sake of discussion that Amendments 9 and 10 refer to state rights rather than personal liberties. If the second amendment were referring to a state right rather than a personal liberty, it should have been placed towards the end of the list with the other state rights rather than being sandwiched between two personal liberties at the beginning of a list of personal liberties. Furthermore, the state militias had already been authorized to bear arms, so they did not need to be authorized again. "the people" mentioned in the second amendment had not until that time been authorized by the Constitution to bear arms. The second amendment explicitly authorized the people to keep and bear the arms of the militia. That means you and I were authorized to keep and bear arms. The purpose of that authorization is for the safeguard of an arsenal in the event that we and our arms are needed for Militia use.
Was the second amendment written to protect hunting rights or rights of personal protection? No, the Constitution is a document about government. It doesn't authorize gardeners to use plows for gardening. It doesn't authorize my wife to use needles for sewing. It doesn't authorize me to use my eyelids for wetting my eyes. It doesn't authorize me to use firearms for hunting. It doesn't authorize me to use firearms for shooting intruders in my house. It authorizes me to keep and bear arms for military use in a well regulated militia for the purpose of maintaining the security of a free state.
Conclusion: The second amendment authorizes citizens to personally keep and bear military arms.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment