There Wasn’t Always a Right to Bear Arms
The 2nd Amendment was against it before it was for it Dec 18 2012The interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution that sidesteps the word “militia” to allow everyone to bear arms is fairly recent. The Constitution was preceded by the Articles of Confederation, drafted some ten years earlier in 1776. It didn’t work out, but its language on the subject clearly shows that militias, rather than individuals, were very much the intent, requiring that
“every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage”.
The Constitution that replaced the Articles reduced that intent to ambiguous brevity that we have argued over ever since. It wasn’t until the 1970s that the NRA began the long march that would change a country that had up until then essentially limited weapons. It would be a transformation of the Second Amendment that in 1990 former Chief Justice Warren Burger would denounce on the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime”. A few decades on we would see another justice, Antonin Scalia, arrive at the opposite conclusion, that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia”.
But that reading of the Second Amendment wasn’t always so. The National Firearms Act of 1934 and a follow-up in 1938 required licensing for gun dealers and banned “machine guns” and their constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1939. Solicitor General Robert H. Jackson argued that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security”. That’s the militia interpretation.
But gun restrictions were commonplace were more the rule than the exception before that. “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America”, is a history of the subject by Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A. He recites a number of laws passed by the states, beginning with Kentucky and Louisiana in1813, that banned concealed weapons. Even Texas followed suit. As excerpted by Jill Lepore in The New Yorker, Winkler says the governor of Texas admonished his citizenry in 1893 that the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.”
Those old enough to remember westerns (they were movies) will also remember the requirement that everyone check their revolvers at the door of the saloon, but Winkler says it went further. “New arrivals were required to turn in their guns to authorities in exchange for something like a metal token”. A Wichita, Kansas, sign in 1873 read, “Leave Your Revolvers at Police Headquarters, and Get a Check”. So much for the Wild West. A law like that even caused the shoot-out at the O.K. Corral, Winkler tells us. The city council of Tombstone, Arizona, had passed an ordinance against the “Carrying of Deadly Weapons”. Wyatt Earp confronted Tom McLaury because McLaury had failed to deposit his gun at the sheriff’s office.
Please subscribe if you haven't, or post a comment below about this article, or
click here to go to our front page.
I do believe in the right to bear arms, but I do not let that extend to carrying concealed weapons. Enforcement is, at best, extremely difficult, because only citizens obeying the law will applicable. Can any kind of gun control prevent massacres like the one in Connecticut? Unfortunately, no, nor have I ever heard a realistic solution that could prevent it.
While I disagree that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of every American to possess weapons and ammunition, and that its original intent was to provide for a well established militia, the so-called “rights” would not be threatened by requiring that every gun owner take a class on gun safety, register his or her gun, and keep their weapons in a safe, secure place. In addition, the lapsed ban on assault weapons and a ban on large clips would not threaten any law-abiding citizen, hunter or target shooter. In order to continue to drive my car, I will have to pass an eye exam and take a written and driving test, all of which are intended to protect other drivers. But a car is a daily necessity in today’s world, whereas a gun is either for recreation or infrequent use. People with guns shoot people, people without guns do not shoot people!
Of course, we need to do more about mental health, but thanks to the attacks from the right on government, there are fewer resources to treat those suffering from mental illness. Registering guns and banning some types will not eliminate murder or even serial killings, but at least it might contribute to reducing the mayhem.
Tony, I understand the history of the second ammendment. You are leaving out several points that cause issue with your logic. To paraphrase “individuals not belonging to a local ‘well-regulated’ militia ought not to have the right to bear arms” … that is what comes through in reading your epistle. Lets consider some related issues.
First, does this mean you are advocating establishment of local militias throughout the USA?
Second, your argument does not account for several example countries where MOST citizens are armed … and many are required to be. These same countries have far fewer crimes with gun violence. Further, countries who DO have very strict gun contols an prohibitions actaull have far greater gun violence.
Third, the only people impacted by gun laws are law abiding citizens. The lawles could care less. They desire unarmed targets. They avoid locations where armed defense is likely.
In conclusion, I don’t know which category of “gun control advocate” you fit in. A-those who are ideologically for gun control and chose not to study history, all the pertinent facts, now consider realistic goals that have some chance of success. The second category are those well-intentioned but ill-informed who “like the feel” of an idea and this support legilation that has negative affects on our peace and safety.
Al,
You raise some good issues. What category I happen to fall into is irrelevant. I am basically a concerned citizen who laments the amount of violence in our society and would like to see an end to the slaughter of innocent victims. Gun control is obviously no panacea, but cities and states which have effective gun registration law have seen a drop in homicide rates (NY City and California).
Since the level of violence in different societies is a reflection of a lot of factors, not just gun possession, one needs to consider all of those factors before drawing conclusions about the relationship of gun ownership and the level of violence. Countries with a high degree of ethnic or tribal diversity probably tend to have higher levels of violence, regardless of the guns in the society, or in some traditional societies, disputes are settled by violent means because of the lack of civil recourse for their resolution.
The lack of a federal system, not just for registering arms or limiting their sale, but in terms of requiring firing pins which would identify the source of the bullet, means that I can visit a neighboring state or attend a gun show and purchase a weapon without any background check and I can purchase a virtual arsenal online. And, lacking forensic evidence of the weapon used, law enforcement remains handicapped.
No system, no matter how draconian, would eliminate firearms, and criminals would still have access to weapons, but criminals caught with them would be brought to trial and given harsher sentences. That is already the law in most jurisdictions. While there are more than enough weapons already in the hands of our citizenry, then the gradual registering, as well as handing in of guns by owners, would ultimately reduce the number of guns available.
While you might feel unprotected as a result, many studies show that the majority of victims of hand guns are family members or friends, and that you are 22 times more likely to be killed or injured by a gun if there is one in the household.
Though there are different views about the effect of TV, film and video-games on the behavior of addicts, I am concerned about the long term effect of such activities on the digital generation and not only how they will regard the use of violence, but also how they will view the victims of real violence. Given the lack of mental health resources to spot and treat potential cases, there is an even greater risk that individuals, isolated in their game or computer rooms, will direct their anti-social feelings towards family members, classmates or bystanders.
Our latest weaponry includes drones, in which the operators sit in comfort somewhere in the United States and launch attacks on “enemies” in distant countries. Presumably we are targeting people who want to do harm to us, in preventive strikes, but close to half the persons murdered are innocent civilians, many of them children. How is it, that we can separate the horror of a small town in Connecticut from the horror which we unleash daily against people living in fear in their community? In the process, we also alienate people who are trying to survive and therefore, create more potential enemies.
We are obviously dealing with complex issues and just banning certain weapons or requiring registration of firearms will not prevent future disasters. But unless we exchange ideas and reconsider what has been working, or not working, then there is no hope that these problems will be addressed.
Amen!
The problem is that “The Lawless” are not complying with the “Self Defense” theory of gun ownership.
“The Lawless” will always NOT comply with “Law”, or otherwise we wouldn’t have this problem.
The deterrence to violent crime with “Gun’s” in my mind is to also be armed.
If “The Lawless” realize they will be confronted in a Home, Business, or Person with a Fire Arm, that is a “Deterrence”;because we already experience that “The Lawless” care less of what “Law” is on the “Books” or “Enforced”.
New York City restricts firearms to “Zero Tolerance”; but back in the 50’s; “Zip Guns” were manufactured by “The Lawless”.
What this Nation needs is a solid “Deterrence” because “Law’s” are ineffective in maintaining Peace & Good Order among The Citizens.
As to “concealed weapons”, “I’d rather see them then not”, so “Open Carry” & “Weapon Retention” are the issue’s – & the continuance of Registration is of necessity.
Let calmer heads prevail with fair and realistic goals being the result; that are realistically ENFORCEABLE.
When it comes to “Domestic Violence”, honestly look at the Stats & you will see “Blunt Trauma & Edged Weapons” as the majority used in Violence Against Persons as a weapon of choice.
“Feel Good Knee Jerk Laws” never work out in “The Human Condition” – check for yourself.