Supplemental Accord Application The Following Shall Be Attached To, And Made Part Of: Fill & Download for Free

To those who follow me I am probably known for long responses to seemingly simple questions. This will not be an exception."Could a state force citizens to house (or quarter) national guard or law enforcement?"The simple answer is "Yes".The more complex answer takes longer. Relax.The basics:"Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would abrogate them” Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 10 ALR 3rd 974 and 59 other ALR treatises .“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right can not be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional Rights.” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 262.“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 373 U.S. 262.“If you've relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.” U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346.The SCOTUS has stated that the Bill of Rights is enforcable within the several States through the 14th Amendment. This is a key statement.Let's examine your SUPPOSED Rights.Amendment 1:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.""....the right of the people peaceably to assemble...."Since you now often must get permission and pay for a permit to peaceably assemble to protest, there are only two reasons. Either the government is violating Amendment 1 or you are not part of the entity known as "the people".Amendment 3:"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."Law enforcement are not considered soldiers so they are not subject to this restriction.Are we now "in time of peace"? We are at war in several countries and have you not heard of the WAR on drugs, WAR on poverty, WAR on crime?Note the "time of war" and "in a manner to be prescribed by law".There are laws and Executive Orders that can be used now to quarter soldiers in your home.Amendment 5:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.""...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation..."So, how do you get a warrant having only an anonymous tip? An anonymous tip is probable cause? Who then gives the affidavit sworn to "by Oath or affirmation.?Amendment 5 continued:"....nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;..."People are routinely found not guilty in criminal court only to be found guilty in a civil court. If you are innocent of an act, how can you beheld financially liable?Sometimes people are charged in both state and federal courts for the same act. The courts have ruled that this is not double jeopardy. Do you agree?People now can be charged with several crimes for the same act. A person is charged with killing someone. That person can be charged with 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. I guess it’s not double jeopardy if you do it up front.Amendment 5 continued still:"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,..."How to explain mandatory breath analyzer tests at traffic stops and the forceable taking of samples for DNA tests?The first is because driving, we are told, is a privilege not Right.The SCOTUS has stated that part of Liberty is the Right to Travel."The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579."The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.There are many other cites but these two state it clearly. Note the word "citizen". What citizen? The same citizen refered to as We the People in the Preamble of the federal Constitution. So, if you are part of We the People, you do not need a license. Another way to put it is, if you need a license, you are not part of We the People.Amendment 5 still:"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..."If your property can be siezed under Civil Forfeiture and you must prove it was not involved in a crime, youbare not one of We the People.Amendment 5 last time:"....nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."In its 5-4 decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court changed the law so that any government entity can take your property and give it to another for virtually any reason at all. It can be to improve the “looks” of the area; increase the tax base; move more businesses into an area; not just for “Public” use as stated in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. ConstitutionSome people complain that this decision amended the federal Constitution but did it? No, it was simply stating, in a roundabout way, that since you are not one of We the People, you own nothing.Now for reasons the aforermetioned statements are true.The vast majority of Americans receive their understanding American history and of the federal Constitution from the government-controlled education system. The form of instruction is from either books written by Constitutional Scholars or teachers taught by Constitutional Scholars.The "Constitutional Scholar" (or lawyers) generally gets the title after being instructed by other constitutional scholars (or lawyers) who have also been taught, or perhaps indoctrinated would be a better word, by previous ones. Since most of this instruction is in an academic environment, one must adhere to the teachings in order to pass and be awarded with basically a "Constitutional Scholar" Certificate (or membership to the Bar).One problem with this is any falsehoods, accidental and intentional, entering the teachings can be perpetrated as facts for future scholars. These "new" facts are also taught to the general population to encourage their acceptance of false information.Another problem is that proper English word usage and meanings along with English concepts of implicit vs explicit, context defining meaning of words with multiple definitions, etc., are ignored if they conflict with the scholars' teachings.The Founders and those writing the amendments, not to mention the US Codes, CFRs and the laws derived from them, were well versed in the English language. What was written was written exactly as they meant it. If they used singular words, they meant a singular subject, if plural words then a plural subject.The facts are that the several States' constitutions protected their Citizens at least as well as the federal one; in most cases better. The federal constitution was designed to lay out specific responsibilities and authorities delegated to the federal government by the several States for matters external to them and among the several States but not matters within them.This provision should be modified due to abuse.Article 1, Section 5,“…..Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”These “rules” include: exempting themselves from their own bills; setting their own salaries and retirement benefits; setting up secret funds to pay for their crimes/embarassments, like prostitutes.This provision should be made mandatory.Article 1, Section 8,“…To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…”This is taken as a suggestion, which us why we have no State Militias, just federal troops.When the Founding Fathers gathered at the Constitutional Convention, they did not show up, write the Constitution and leave the next day. It took several months because they disagreed on just about everything. Not all of them wanted a republic; some wanted: a true democracy; a monarchy, an oligarchy where the “rich and learned” would rule over those who were poor and/or uneducated (for their (our?) own good of course). The resulting document was a compromise.One compromise was allowing slavery. It was done to get all the States to stay in the Union. Slavery was put on the back burner but not before a clause was approved that counted the slave population at only three fifths of their actual number. This provision has been cited as proof of the racism of the Founding Fathers but it was to lessen the slave States representation in the House of Representatives and thus their power.Those in Congress who were against a republic were more enamored with power than actually adhering to the restraints imposed by the federal Constitution, so they placed various restrictions on Southern goods which ended with those States seceeding, lawfully, from the Union. Why was the war necessary?13th AmendmentSECTION 1.Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Note the "their jurisdiction", it is plural and means the several States, but not the federal government or it's possessions and territories. (In English, and Law, explicitly naming entities implicitly excludes entities not named. So, since this Amendment explicitly and exclusively names the several States it excludes the federal government from its provisions against involuntary servitude.)The former Confederate States, after being welcomed back into the Union and after voting to ratify the 13th Amendment, were refused their right to Suffrage after refusing to ratify the 14th. The Northern Congressmen refused to seat those former Confederate Congressmen. They then passed the Reconstruction Acts that called for the military occupation of those States; the overthrow of the duly-elected officials and the appointment of replacements by Congress. These appointed officials then voted to ratify the amendment. Still think its constitutional?Why did those States balk at the 14th Amendment? Among other things, this alleged amendment created a new citizen, all of us now, that is a subject of the federal government. These new citizens have no Rights, only immunities and privileges granted by the federal government. Some of these mimic those enumerated in the Bill of Rights and create the impression that you have Rights protected by the Constitution. These federal citizens, actually chattel, are deemed to be citizens of the Seat of Government, DC, and as such subject to any and all whims of the federal government.Since the 14th Amendment was unlawfully and unconstitutionally declared ratified, why was it important to those who instigated the War Between the States to write it? You must step outside your government-controlled education. Despite the teaching that the Founders were generally supportive of the new concept that All political authority was held by We the People, quite a few were opposed to a Constitutional Republic. Some wanted a monarchy, some a pure democracy, others an oligarchy, with them and their heirs as leaders.They could see that slavery was going to slowly be fazed out. The Industrial innovations would reduce, if not eliminate, the need for slaves so the then corrupt officials had to create a situation that would allow them to take control of the nation.Let's look at the alleged Amendment.Section 1:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."The creation of a new class of citizen wholly subject to the federal government."Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP."Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)"We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States DO NOT NECESSARILLY INCLUDE all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment..."Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)"..... and of the State wherein they reside....."This is interesting because a State Citizen is by definition a Citizen of their respective State but since a federal citizen is, legally, a citizen of the District of Columbia which is not one of the several States, they would have been considered alien to them. That means they would be ineligible to vote within one of them.The original California Code stated that a person was either a Citizen of California, one of the other several States OR you were an alien."No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."This portion, since federal citizens had little State Constitutional protections, forces a State to respect the privileges and Immunities GRANTED to them by the federal government. Note that the term "Rights" is not here.Section 2:"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."Note the lawfully designated "several States". This changes the apportionment to "persons" which includes the mentioned alien federal citizen. It has, currently, been construed to include illegal aliens."But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabit￾ants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and Citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.This reduces the basis for representation by excluding persons whose right to vote has been suspended. But not the exception to the reduction for "participation in rebellion". This was aimed at those former members of the Confederacy who would be denied their Right to vote. While white males, a considerable number that would affect representation, were denied that Right by the unlawful Reconstruction Acts, those former Confederate States soon to be APPOINTED reps would not be diminished allowing the traitorous Congress to further enslave the former We the People.Section 3:No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Con￾gress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any offi ce, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereofWhile sounding reasonable, note the "...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,....".The States making up the Confederate States of America LAWFULLY SECEDED from the Union. Hence, no rebellion or insurrection. But it does deflect the real reason for the Amendment.".... But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability...."This alleged Amendment then allows the Congress to have those it wants to be in Congress and the States' legislatures regardless of crimes. Sound familiar?Section 4:The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.So this prohibits anyone, including you, from questioning the now astronomical debt. Nice!This alleged Amendment truly started the conversion of the free united States of America into a Feudal Democracy where government controls virtually every aspect of life in America.The 15th Amendment further obscured the federal takeover of the Republic by suppossedly preventing the several States from denying freed slaves from voting but, actually, preventing the several States from denying the new alien federal citizen from voting in State elections.Remember that the original California Code stated that a person was either a Citizen of California, one of the other several States OR you were an alien. 14th Amendment citizens of the United States are deemed to be citizens of the District of Columbia, that being the Seat of the federal government, residing in one of the several States. DC is not one of the several States, hence its citizens could be denied voting in a State without the 15th.Of course, the fact of the military takeover of the Southern States and the appointment of those States' representatives in both State and federal offices, allowed the traitorous Congress to control what information the people received for years, safely indocrinated into accepting their eventual enslavenent. The 16th was not properly ratified because some states modified the wording before voting. This should have mandated that it be returned to Congress, the changes debated and incorporated or not, and then resubmitted. This amendment was unlawfully declared ratified by Secretary of State Alexander Knox.This is claimed to allow the federal government to tax everybody but it is more insidious. The feds already had that authority under Article 1 Section 8 through the alleged 14th Amendment. The 16th amendment was to divert the people's attention away from the actuality of the fact that they, we, own nothing; all our property is owned and taxable by the feds.That is why the SCOTUS ruled that the government can take your property for any reason and give it to anyone else despite the clear wording of the Constitution specifying public use.The 17th Amendment violates the very Article setting up the amendment process."...no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."The amendment specifically exempts every single one of the several States Right to Suffrage from the requirement the when, “…two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; …..”In order for the 17th to conform to Article 5, every one of the several States would have to have given its consent for the amendment to be constitutionally ratified. Some have stated that the amendment just changed the process for Senators since the States still had equal Suffrage with thd other States. This was not a violation of process; it was a violation of the Constitution.One must understand why the legislative branch of the federal government has two parts. The House of Representatives represents the people. All spending bills must originate in the House because only people pay taxes and the people should control it. The Senate is tasked with giving its consent to federal officers, ambassadors, justices and treaties. Since the actions of these, especially treaties, are binding on the several States, the several States ensured that they would be a check on federal power by controlling their Senators.The truth here is that by changing the mechanism for selecting Senators, this amendment changed the control and focus of the Senate. It resulted in the several States no longer having representation in Congress. Senators are no longer answerable to their respective State's Legislatures but to the people of these States. Senators now campaign to influence people with the same promises of an endless free lunch. There is no consideration of how their plans will affect the States.To those who will declare that the several States still have "equal Suffrage in the Senate”; similar occurances are now happening in several States. They are passing legislation that will have the State's Electors cast their votes for whomever wins the popular vote for President regardless of who receives the majority of that State's popular vote. Will the same argument be used here to quiet dissent? After all, only the process of selecting Electors changed, you still have the right to vote, right?Why is this important? Some seemingly innocuous provisions and terms were used whose meanings at the time were understood and so not well defined in the document.Article 1, Section 6:"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States."With no outside, that is Citizen, oversight, we now have a Congress entitled to lavish expense allowances, lifetime pensions for serving a single term, a secret slush fund to pay for sexual harrassment charges.At least one provision was a seed that if properly watered and fertilized could take root and eventually destroy the country. It is found in Article 1, Section 8., "...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States....".Since Congress has the power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District…”; the courts have held that Congress can do pretty much whatever it wants in the district. Remember, “…the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States (Congress) do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government.” Also note that citizens of Congress only have “privileges and immunities of citizens” and not “rights protected by the first eight amendments”.Congress wears two hats and operates in two capacities or jurisdictions simultaneously, each of which covers a different and mutually exclusive geographical area:1. As the municipal government for the District of Columbia and all U.S. territories and possessions. All “acts of Congress” or federal statutes passed in this capacity are referred to as “private international law”. This political community is called the “National Government” and it is described in the municipal statutory law for federal territory.2. As the general government for the states of the Union. All “acts of Congress” or federal statutes passed in this capacity are called “public international law”. This political community is called the “Federal Government" and it is described in the Constitution.Each of the two capacities above has different types of “citizens” within it and each is a unique and separate “body politic”. Nearly all laws that Congress writes pertain to the first jurisdiction above only.“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”(Cohens v. Virginia393H, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821))Most Americans accept the current idea that ALL federal laws are binding on all the several States and their Citizens. But this is only true as we are subjects of the federal government due to the American Republic being conquered. The Republic, as described in the federal constitution, should consist of a federal government and, currently, fifty free States. The original Citizens of the several States were only subject to their State's laws and only mildly affected by federal laws. Those living in the District of Columbia, territories and possessions of the federal government were subject to all municipal laws of Congress.Now, however, due to the alleged 14th Amendment, all Americans are deemed to be subject to the municipal laws with the States, through the Buck Act, we live in federal territories NOT any of the free several States.The following is from “The Buck Act” by Richard McDonald. I strongly recommend you read the entire article.Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 in the U.S. Constitution. So, in 1940, Congress passed the "Buck Act". In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a "Federal area" for imposition of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939". The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a "Federal area" overlay.4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States.Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a "Federal area"? A "Federal area" is any area designated by any agency, department, or establishment of the federal government. This includes the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a home that has a federal bank loan, a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the federal government touches through any type of aid. Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.).This "Federal area" attaches to anyone who has a Social Security Number or any personal contact with the federal or state governments. Through this mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states, by creating "Federal areas" within the boundaries of the states under the authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia, Congress] residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as property, as franchisees of the federal government, and as an "individual entity". Under the "Buck Act", the federal government has created a "Federal area" within the boundaries of all the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon all people in this "Federal area"…Most of the Founders would be appalled at what has happened to the Republic for which they pledged their sacred honor, fought and died. Some would be happy with the current oligarchy we have where our presiding rulers lord over the domain from Washington DC with lesser nobles at state and local levels. Their subjects, all current Americans, are given the impression of being able to elect people who represent themselves but are simply choosing from a cast of preselected clones.This is the reality today.

Here you go … again!The second amendment: It’s an individual RIGHTA 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 original intent and purpose of the second amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.The second amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the founding fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century supreme court decisions, indicating that the second amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.Evidence of an individual rightIn his popular edition of Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of England (1803), st. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, revolutionary war militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the second amendment:The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.In the appendix to the commentaries, Tucker elaborates further: This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense."because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,” the supreme court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every supreme court era." (source: the second amendment in the nineteenth century)(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published commentaries on the laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American founders.)Another jurist contemporaneous to the founders, William Rawle, authored "a view of the constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at west point and other institutions. In chapter 10 he describes the scope of the second amendment's right to keep and bear arms:The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.(in 1791 William Rawle was appointed united states attorney for Pennsylvania by president George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years.)Yet another jurist, justice Story (appointed to the supreme court as an associate justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("commentaries on the constitution of the united states"). Regarding the second amendment, he wrote (source):The next amendment is: "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 importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.As the Tennessee supreme court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this "passage from story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."Story adds:And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.Story laments the people's lack of enthusiasm for maintaining a well-regulated militia. However, some anti-gun rights advocates misinterpret this entire passage as being "consistent with the theory that the second amendment guarantees a right of the people to be armed only when in service of an organized militia." (see arms, anarchy and the second amendment for an example of reaching that conclusion by committing a non-sequitur.)The need for a well-regulated militia and an armed citizenry are not mutually exclusive, nor was the right to have arms considered dependent on membership in an active militia (more on that later). Rather, as illustrated by Tucker, Rawle, and Story, the militia clause and the right to arms were intended to be complementary.More evidence supporting an individual rightAfter James Madison's bill of rights was submitted to congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the right to keep and bear arms, 1787-1823) published his "remarks on the first part of the amendments to the federal constitution," in the federal gazette, June 18, 1789 he asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."a search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the second amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (halbrook, stephen p. "the right of the people or the power of the state bearing arms, arming militias, and the second amendment". Originally published as 26 val. U. L.rev. 131-207, 1991).Earlier, in the Pennsylvania gazette, feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The Unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where i trust in god it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.The federalist papersAlexander Hamilton in federalist, no. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The Project of disciplining all the militia of the united states is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.James Madison in federalist no. 46 wrote:Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.Here, like story, Madison is expressing the idea that additional advantages accrue to the people when the citizens' right to arms is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.The federalist papers continued – "the original right of self-defense"The founders realized insurrections may occur from time to time and it is the militia's duty to suppress them. They also realized that however remote the possibility of usurpation was, the people with their arms, had the right to restore their republican form of government by force, if necessary, as an extreme last resort. "the original right of self-defense" is not a modern-day concoction.We now examine Hamilton's federalist no. 28. Hamilton begins:That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.Hamilton explains that the national government may occasionally need to quell insurrections and it is certainly justified in doing so.Hamilton continues:If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state's militia. But of course, via the militia clause, the second amendment acknowledges, as well, the right of a state to maintain a militia. (for more on militia see: Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment.)Hamilton concludes, telling us the above scenario is extremely unlikely to occur:When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their state governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.Again, it is the recurring theme of the people's right to keep and bear arms as individuals, enhanced by a militia system, that (in part) provides for the "security of a free state."Connecting the dots..."the opinion of the federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . " --- the U.S. Supreme court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)Although the federalist papers were written prior to the drafting of the bill of rights (but after the constitution was sent to the states for ratification), the passages quoted, above, help explain the relationships that were understood between a well-regulated militia, the people, their governments, and the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment did not declare or establish any new rights or novel principles.The purpose of the militia clause"collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the states to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. V. Emerson, 46 f.supp.2d 598 (n.d.tex. 1999))For more information about justification clauses see: volokh, eugene, the commonplace second amendment, (73 nyu l. Rev. 793 (1998)). (see also, Kopel, David, words of freedom, national review online, May 16, 2001.)Parting shotsThere are 3 ways the second amendment is usually interpreted to deny it was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms:It protects a state's right to keep and bear arms.The right is individual, but limited to active militia members because the militia clause narrows the right's scope.The term "people" refers to the people collectively, rather than the people as individuals.Yet, three jurists, who were contemporaries of the founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the second amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period.Instead of the "right of the people," the amendment's drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the fifth amendment, had they meant to restrict the right.It strains credulity to believe the aforementioned three jurists misconstrued the meaning of the second amendment.The only model that comports with all of the evidence from the founding period is the one interpreting the second amendment as protecting an individual right for a collective purpose. The militia clause and the right to keep and bear arms were intended to be complementary.Perversely, gun rights defenders are accused of creating a second amendment myth, when it is some present-day jurists and historians who have failed to give a full account of the historical record.================ Next up ===================“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.” — 2nd Amendment.When reading the Constitution, one must remember that its drafters incorporated the ideas from the National Charter, the Declaration. It had asserted that self-defense was a citizen’s right and duty — a maxim which was embodied in both the state and national constitutions.The language of the Second Amendment indicates that self-defense was the foundational principle implied. The words “Militia,” “security of a free State” and “keep and bear Arms” all contribute to this understanding.Since the right of self-defense is one of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” it will exist with or without the Bill of Rights. But the framers wanted to further secure this right, and therefore, they drafted the Second Amendment. In this Amendment, the framers either explicitly stated or strongly implied the three most common ways to secure the right of self-defense: the right to have arms, the duty to be in the militia, and the danger of standing armies. The text and context of the Amendment, supplemented with the Congressional debates, reveal this intent.The second view is the “individual rights” interpretation. The proponents of this view argue that the “right of the people” which is being protected refers to every individual citizen. Important in arriving at this conclusion is the historical evidence prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment — especially the state proposals, since they directly gave rise to the language of the Amendment. Of the states proposing a right to keep and bear arms, none restricted gun ownership to only the militia, and in fact, some states actually made an explicit request for a guarantee of a universal right.While these two interpretations differ superficially, in the end they both arrive at the same answer, that is, if the proper rules of interpretation are followed. Under the “collective rights” view which links arms ownership to militia duty, the Second Amendment only protects the right of militia-members to bear arms. But for one to then conclude this as a matter of policy would effectively divorce the Bill of Rights from the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 does not give Congress the authority to confiscate the weapons of non-militia-members, meaning that Congress can not deny any citizen of his right to keep and bear arms. Thus, the Second Amendment and the Constitution together protect every individual’s right to keep and bear arms. (Even standing alone, the Second Amendment would at least make the right to bear arms applicable to the entire male population. Federal laws from 1792 to the present have defined the militia as comprising every male citizen, not just a select few.)According to the second view, the Anglo-American history (especially the state proposals) should help interpret the Second Amendment. This would link the right to have arms to non-militiamen as well as militiamen, thereby protecting everyone’s right. Either way, therefore, both interpretations ultimately yield the same conclusion since the Constitution and the Second Amendment must be examined together. The result is a constitutional protection of an individual right to keep and bear arms.The “individual rights” interpretation is further supported by a closer examination of the text and context of the Amendment. First, the “right of the people” means everyone. Most people would agree that the “right of the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments guarantees individual rights. The right of the people to peaceably assemble, to petition, and to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures are rights that are commonly considered to apply to all individuals.The same must be said, therefore, for the “right of the people” in the Second Amendment. To argue that this right only guarantees a collective right, while the “right of the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments guarantees individual rights, would suggest that the framers were guilty of equivocating. (But whenever one interprets a text, one must give the benefit of the doubt to the author. This is Aristotle’s rule of interpretation. One must not assume an author to be illogical unless there are compelling reasons for such an assumption.)Second, the words “shall not be infringed” indicate that there is a preexisting right of the people which is being preserved. Even if the right to have arms only related to the militia, the laws of nature and of nature’s God would still permit an individual to use a weapon for his personal self-defense.Finally, the contextual analysis supports an “individual rights” interpretation. Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that, “They [the proposed amendments] relate 1st. to private rights.”Madison’s statement means that the Second Amendment was intended to secure a private right.The Second Amendment further states that the people shall not be denied their right “to keep and bear arms.” The words “keep” and “bear” do not mean the same thing, although they are similar in meaning. Noah Webster defined “keep” as a matter of possession: “to have in custody for security or preservation.”Meanwhile, “bear” refers to where one can keep what he possesses; “bear” means “to wear . . . as, to bear a sword . . . to bear arms in a coat.”Therefore, having defined these terms, and remembering that the Second Amendment secures the right of self-defense, one could put the following gloss on the latter half of the Amendment: “the right of each individual to lawfully possess and wear arms for his self-defense, shall not be infringed.” This is a guarantee of an individual right, and it assumes that self-defense works from the inside-out.A few words must be said concerning the nature of this right. Quite simply, a right is not a wrong. As with any right, it must be used for a lawful purpose, not a wrongful one. For example, a person can not claim a right of liberty to drive a car through his neighbor’s front yard. The right of liberty must be exercised in a lawful fashion, meaning that there are limits to that right. Similarly, an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. While one may use a gun for a lawful purpose (such as in self-defense), one does not have a right to use a weapon to commit a crime.The second important provision in the Second Amendment is the statement: “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”The militia of the 1700’s included every free citizen. George Mason stated in the Virginia convention, “I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”The founders believed that the militia should be well-regulated, that is, that every citizen should be trained and be vigilant, ready to exercise his citizen duty. Defense was seen as a matter of individual self-government and was a duty that everyone shared.Furthermore, a well regulated Militia was considered to be “necessary to the security of a free State.” The Second Amendment emphasized the “Militia” and the “State,” not the army and the nation. This emphasis (upon a local defense) reaffirmed the federal nature of the United States, for defense was considered to be primarily a duty for the diverse parts in times of peace.Finally, a third item which is implied in the Second Amendment is the deterrent to having a standing army. This is accomplished by the phrase, “a well regulated Militia,” because it is a well-regulated militia that will diminish the need for a standing army. Elbridge Gerry stated during the Congressional debates over the Second Amendment, “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.”Thus, the militia preserved the individual right and duty of self-defense by reducing the need for a permanent standing army.By way of summary, the text and context of the Second Amendment show that the inside-out principle of self-defense lies at the very foundation of the Amendment.The right of self-defense is embodied in many of the current state constitutions as well. While forty-three state constitutions have right to keep and bear arm provisions, several have pro-militia and anti-standing army clauses as well.North Carolina’s constitution, for example, states all three: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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained.States such as Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Washington (to name but a few) make it unmistakably clear that the right to keep and bear arms in those states applies to every citizen. For example, Washington’s Constitution states that, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.”In conclusion, the right of self-defense has been embodied in the constitutional documents of the United States: the state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights. All of them affirm that the principle of self-defense should work from the inside-out. — Source Erich M. Pratt================= And finally ======================“The concept that governments should possess a monopoly of force was not the viewpoint of Americans during the Founding Era. Our states and nation came into being because Americans decided to end British attempts to place the military in control of the civil population of Massachusetts. Americans replaced British military tyranny with civil governments dependent upon and supported by the inherent power of the people themselves. They assured that nothing like a government of force, the opposite of a free government, could ever again be set up in the United States. This was accomplished by simply protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, thus assuring their ability to self-embody for effective organized defense.All eight Revolutionary Era Second Amendment predecessors, as well as the three Ratification Era two-clause proposals copied from them, were leading parts of complete Mason Triads. This context indicates the intention of both Second Amendment clauses was to assure the armed civil population’s control over government raised military force for the purpose of preventing oppression and tyranny. The First Congress, by protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, assured the people of being in a position to self-embody as an effective militia. Indeed, this was the very foundation of the Federalists’ polity as often expressed in their arms related mantra during the ratification struggle. A free state was ensured by such an armed populace because the people were inherently able to prevent the forceful implementation of acts that violated their rights and the Constitution. In the unlikely event such situations of force should ever arise, the people by merely defending themselves would be enforcing the supreme law of the land, and those attempting to use force against the people would be in direct violation of that supreme law, which the people had authorized.Today, to the extent that the Second Amendment’s language is considered confusing or unclear, one thing is certain. Those applying such descriptions are unfamiliar with or ignoring the Second Amendment’s extensively documented American bill of rights history and period usage of its terms. Our history conclusively demonstrates both Second Amendment clauses are part and parcel of the individual rights protections that constitute the first eight amendments of the U.S. Bill of Rights. All of these provisions resulted from state ratifying convention desires that protections of the existing state bill of rights be added to the U.S. Constitution in a Federal Bill of Rights.The relevant historical documents indicate that the Second Amendment’s clauses, just like their state bill of rights predecessors, were intended to protect individual rights against misconstruction and abuse of government powers.” — Source: The History of the Second Amendment's ClausesYou can try to twist it how ever you want but history again says you are wrong. The 2nd is an individual right. Always has been. Even direct quotes from the men that were responsible for debating it made it clear it’s an individual right meant for both an individual and collective purpose.“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, *Federal Farmer No. 18*, January 25, 1788“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”And another case where it was decided to be an individual right: “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” -- Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859)Here is a typical Anti-federalist view, expressed by Richard Henry Lee (writing under the pseudonym "The Federal Farmer"):"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…."Don B. Kates, one of our leading Second Amendment scholars, observes:"The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes."It is revealing that in the thousands of pages of proceedings that were published in the course of the debates that took place in the state and federal legislatures before the drafting of the bill of rights and throughout the ratification period, little mention is made of the individual right to keep and bear arms. This indicates, I think it is fair to say, that whatever their disagreements about the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution, the Federalists and Anti-federalists were unanimous in their support of an individual right to keep and bear arms. They were also unanimous in assuming that "the right of the people to keep…arms" included the individual right to keep ordinary personal arms for armed self- and community-defense, especially against burglars, robbers, and rapists.This lack of understanding of the nature of the controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists is one of the two principal reasons, I believe, why the proponents of gun control have reached the erroneous conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective right" or "states' right" to keep and bear armsIt’s not my opinion, but documented historical FACT that I stand by and refuse to accept your or any other contrary OPINION that the right to bear arms in not an individual right.

Wrong again!The 2nd Amendment as with other amendments do not grant or guarantee, but define the right enumerated. Below are is a long, long read. But if you take the time to read it, you will find that the right does in fact exist and the 2nd merely states that in text.The second amendment: It’s an individual RIGHTA 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 original intent and purpose of the second amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.The second amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the founding fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century supreme court decisions, indicating that the second amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.Evidence of an individual rightIn his popular edition of Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of England (1803), st. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, revolutionary war militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the second amendment:The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.In the appendix to the commentaries, Tucker elaborates further: This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense."because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,” the supreme court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every supreme court era." (source: the second amendment in the nineteenth century)(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published commentaries on the laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American founders.)Another jurist contemporaneous to the founders, William Rawle, authored "a view of the constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at west point and other institutions. In chapter 10 he describes the scope of the second amendment's right to keep and bear arms:The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.(in 1791 William Rawle was appointed united states attorney for Pennsylvania by president George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years.)Yet another jurist, justice Story (appointed to the supreme court as an associate justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("commentaries on the constitution of the united states"). Regarding the second amendment, he wrote (source):The next amendment is: "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 importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.As the Tennessee supreme court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this "passage from story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."Story adds:And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.Story laments the people's lack of enthusiasm for maintaining a well-regulated militia. However, some anti-gun rights advocates misinterpret this entire passage as being "consistent with the theory that the second amendment guarantees a right of the people to be armed only when in service of an organized militia." (see arms, anarchy and the second amendment for an example of reaching that conclusion by committing a non-sequitur.)The need for a well-regulated militia and an armed citizenry are not mutually exclusive, nor was the right to have arms considered dependent on membership in an active militia (more on that later). Rather, as illustrated by Tucker, Rawle, and Story, the militia clause and the right to arms were intended to be complementary.More evidence supporting an individual rightAfter James Madison's bill of rights was submitted to congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the right to keep and bear arms, 1787-1823) published his "remarks on the first part of the amendments to the federal constitution," in the federal gazette, June 18, 1789 he asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."a search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the second amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (halbrook, stephen p. "the right of the people or the power of the state bearing arms, arming militias, and the second amendment". Originally published as 26 val. U. L.rev. 131-207, 1991).Earlier, in the Pennsylvania gazette, feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The Unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where i trust in god it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.The federalist papersAlexander Hamilton in federalist, no. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The Project of disciplining all the militia of the united states is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.James Madison in federalist no. 46 wrote:Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.Here, like story, Madison is expressing the idea that additional advantages accrue to the people when the citizens' right to arms is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.The federalist papers continued – "the original right of self-defense"The founders realized insurrections may occur from time to time and it is the militia's duty to suppress them. They also realized that however remote the possibility of usurpation was, the people with their arms, had the right to restore their republican form of government by force, if necessary, as an extreme last resort. "the original right of self-defense" is not a modern-day concoction.We now examine Hamilton's federalist no. 28. Hamilton begins:That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.Hamilton explains that the national government may occasionally need to quell insurrections and it is certainly justified in doing so.Hamilton continues:If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state's militia. But of course, via the militia clause, the second amendment acknowledges, as well, the right of a state to maintain a militia. (for more on militia see: Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment.)Hamilton concludes, telling us the above scenario is extremely unlikely to occur:When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their state governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.Again, it is the recurring theme of the people's right to keep and bear arms as individuals, enhanced by a militia system, that (in part) provides for the "security of a free state."Connecting the dots..."the opinion of the federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . " --- the U.S. Supreme court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)Although the federalist papers were written prior to the drafting of the bill of rights (but after the constitution was sent to the states for ratification), the passages quoted, above, help explain the relationships that were understood between a well-regulated militia, the people, their governments, and the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment did not declare or establish any new rights or novel principles.The purpose of the militia clause"collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the states to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. V. Emerson, 46 f.supp.2d 598 (n.d.tex. 1999))For more information about justification clauses see: volokh, eugene, the commonplace second amendment, (73 nyu l. Rev. 793 (1998)). (see also, Kopel, David, words of freedom, national review online, May 16, 2001.)Parting shotsThere are 3 ways the second amendment is usually interpreted to deny it was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms:It protects a state's right to keep and bear arms.The right is individual, but limited to active militia members because the militia clause narrows the right's scope.The term "people" refers to the people collectively, rather than the people as individuals.Yet, three jurists, who were contemporaries of the founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the second amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period.Instead of the "right of the people," the amendment's drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the fifth amendment, had they meant to restrict the right.It strains credulity to believe the aforementioned three jurists misconstrued the meaning of the second amendment.The only model that comports with all of the evidence from the founding period is the one interpreting the second amendment as protecting an individual right for a collective purpose. The militia clause and the right to keep and bear arms were intended to be complementary.Perversely, gun rights defenders are accused of creating a second amendment myth, when it is some present-day jurists and historians who have failed to give a full account of the historical record.======================== Next up ===================“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.” — 2nd Amendment.When reading the Constitution, one must remember that its drafters incorporated the ideas from the National Charter, the Declaration. It had asserted that self-defense was a citizen’s right and duty — a maxim which was embodied in both the state and national constitutions.The language of the Second Amendment indicates that self-defense was the foundational principle implied. The words “Militia,” “security of a free State” and “keep and bear Arms” all contribute to this understanding.Since the right of self-defense is one of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” it will exist with or without the Bill of Rights. But the framers wanted to further secure this right, and therefore, they drafted the Second Amendment. In this Amendment, the framers either explicitly stated or strongly implied the three most common ways to secure the right of self-defense: the right to have arms, the duty to be in the militia, and the danger of standing armies. The text and context of the Amendment, supplemented with the Congressional debates, reveal this intent.The second view is the “individual rights” interpretation. The proponents of this view argue that the “right of the people” which is being protected refers to every individual citizen. Important in arriving at this conclusion is the historical evidence prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment — especially the state proposals, since they directly gave rise to the language of the Amendment. Of the states proposing a right to keep and bear arms, none restricted gun ownership to only the militia, and in fact, some states actually made an explicit request for a guarantee of a universal right.While these two interpretations differ superficially, in the end they both arrive at the same answer, that is, if the proper rules of interpretation are followed. Under the “collective rights” view which links arms ownership to militia duty, the Second Amendment only protects the right of militia-members to bear arms. But for one to then conclude this as a matter of policy would effectively divorce the Bill of Rights from the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 does not give Congress the authority to confiscate the weapons of non-militia-members, meaning that Congress can not deny any citizen of his right to keep and bear arms. Thus, the Second Amendment and the Constitution together protect every individual’s right to keep and bear arms. (Even standing alone, the Second Amendment would at least make the right to bear arms applicable to the entire male population. Federal laws from 1792 to the present have defined the militia as comprising every male citizen, not just a select few.)According to the second view, the Anglo-American history (especially the state proposals) should help interpret the Second Amendment. This would link the right to have arms to non-militiamen as well as militiamen, thereby protecting everyone’s right. Either way, therefore, both interpretations ultimately yield the same conclusion since the Constitution and the Second Amendment must be examined together. The result is a constitutional protection of an individual right to keep and bear arms.The “individual rights” interpretation is further supported by a closer examination of the text and context of the Amendment. First, the “right of the people” means everyone. Most people would agree that the “right of the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments guarantees individual rights. The right of the people to peaceably assemble, to petition, and to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures are rights that are commonly considered to apply to all individuals.The same must be said, therefore, for the “right of the people” in the Second Amendment. To argue that this right only guarantees a collective right, while the “right of the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments guarantees individual rights, would suggest that the framers were guilty of equivocating. (But whenever one interprets a text, one must give the benefit of the doubt to the author. This is Aristotle’s rule of interpretation. One must not assume an author to be illogical unless there are compelling reasons for such an assumption.)Second, the words “shall not be infringed” indicate that there is a preexisting right of the people which is being preserved. Even if the right to have arms only related to the militia, the laws of nature and of nature’s God would still permit an individual to use a weapon for his personal self-defense.Finally, the contextual analysis supports an “individual rights” interpretation. Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that, “They [the proposed amendments] relate 1st. to private rights.”Madison’s statement means that the Second Amendment was intended to secure a private right.The Second Amendment further states that the people shall not be denied their right “to keep and bear arms.” The words “keep” and “bear” do not mean the same thing, although they are similar in meaning. Noah Webster defined “keep” as a matter of possession: “to have in custody for security or preservation.”Meanwhile, “bear” refers to where one can keep what he possesses; “bear” means “to wear . . . as, to bear a sword . . . to bear arms in a coat.”Therefore, having defined these terms, and remembering that the Second Amendment secures the right of self-defense, one could put the following gloss on the latter half of the Amendment: “the right of each individual to lawfully possess and wear arms for his self-defense, shall not be infringed.” This is a guarantee of an individual right, and it assumes that self-defense works from the inside-out.A few words must be said concerning the nature of this right. Quite simply, a right is not a wrong. As with any right, it must be used for a lawful purpose, not a wrongful one. For example, a person can not claim a right of liberty to drive a car through his neighbor’s front yard. The right of liberty must be exercised in a lawful fashion, meaning that there are limits to that right. Similarly, an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. While one may use a gun for a lawful purpose (such as in self-defense), one does not have a right to use a weapon to commit a crime.The second important provision in the Second Amendment is the statement: “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”The militia of the 1700’s included every free citizen. George Mason stated in the Virginia convention, “I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”The founders believed that the militia should be well-regulated, that is, that every citizen should be trained and be vigilant, ready to exercise his citizen duty. Defense was seen as a matter of individual self-government and was a duty that everyone shared.Furthermore, a well regulated Militia was considered to be “necessary to the security of a free State.” The Second Amendment emphasized the “Militia” and the “State,” not the army and the nation. This emphasis (upon a local defense) reaffirmed the federal nature of the United States, for defense was considered to be primarily a duty for the diverse parts in times of peace.Finally, a third item which is implied in the Second Amendment is the deterrent to having a standing army. This is accomplished by the phrase, “a well regulated Militia,” because it is a well-regulated militia that will diminish the need for a standing army. Elbridge Gerry stated during the Congressional debates over the Second Amendment, “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.”Thus, the militia preserved the individual right and duty of self-defense by reducing the need for a permanent standing army.By way of summary, the text and context of the Second Amendment show that the inside-out principle of self-defense lies at the very foundation of the Amendment.The right of self-defense is embodied in many of the current state constitutions as well. While forty-three state constitutions have right to keep and bear arm provisions, several have pro-militia and anti-standing army clauses as well.North Carolina’s constitution, for example, states all three: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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained.States such as Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Washington (to name but a few) make it unmistakably clear that the right to keep and bear arms in those states applies to every citizen. For example, Washington’s Constitution states that, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.”In conclusion, the right of self-defense has been embodied in the constitutional documents of the United States: the state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights. All of them affirm that the principle of self-defense should work from the inside-out. — Source Erich M. Pratt================= And finally ======================“The concept that governments should possess a monopoly of force was not the viewpoint of Americans during the Founding Era. Our states and nation came into being because Americans decided to end British attempts to place the military in control of the civil population of Massachusetts. Americans replaced British military tyranny with civil governments dependent upon and supported by the inherent power of the people themselves. They assured that nothing like a government of force, the opposite of a free government, could ever again be set up in the United States. This was accomplished by simply protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, thus assuring their ability to self-embody for effective organized defense.All eight Revolutionary Era Second Amendment predecessors, as well as the three Ratification Era two-clause proposals copied from them, were leading parts of complete Mason Triads. This context indicates the intention of both Second Amendment clauses was to assure the armed civil population’s control over government raised military force for the purpose of preventing oppression and tyranny. The First Congress, by protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, assured the people of being in a position to self-embody as an effective militia. Indeed, this was the very foundation of the Federalists’ polity as often expressed in their arms related mantra during the ratification struggle. A free state was ensured by such an armed populace because the people were inherently able to prevent the forceful implementation of acts that violated their rights and the Constitution. In the unlikely event such situations of force should ever arise, the people by merely defending themselves would be enforcing the supreme law of the land, and those attempting to use force against the people would be in direct violation of that supreme law, which the people had authorized.Today, to the extent that the Second Amendment’s language is considered confusing or unclear, one thing is certain. Those applying such descriptions are unfamiliar with or ignoring the Second Amendment’s extensively documented American bill of rights history and period usage of its terms. Our history conclusively demonstrates both Second Amendment clauses are part and parcel of the individual rights protections that constitute the first eight amendments of the U.S. Bill of Rights. All of these provisions resulted from state ratifying convention desires that protections of the existing state bill of rights be added to the U.S. Constitution in a Federal Bill of Rights.The relevant historical documents indicate that the Second Amendment’s clauses, just like their state bill of rights predecessors, were intended to protect individual rights against misconstruction and abuse of government powers.” — Source: The History of the Second Amendment's ClausesYou can try to twist it how ever you want but history again says you are wrong. The 2nd is an individual right. Always has been. Even direct quotes from the men that were responsible for debating it made it clear it’s an individual right meant for both an individual and collective purpose.“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, *Federal Farmer No. 18*, January 25, 1788“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”And another case where it was decided to be an individual right: “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” -- Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859)Here is a typical Anti-federalist view, expressed by Richard Henry Lee (writing under the pseudonym "The Federal Farmer"):"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…."Don B. Kates, one of our leading Second Amendment scholars, observes:"The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes."It is revealing that in the thousands of pages of proceedings that were published in the course of the debates that took place in the state and federal legislatures before the drafting of the bill of rights and throughout the ratification period, little mention is made of the individual right to keep and bear arms. This indicates, I think it is fair to say, that whatever their disagreements about the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution, the Federalists and Anti-federalists were unanimous in their support of an individual right to keep and bear arms. They were also unanimous in assuming that "the right of the people to keep…arms" included the individual right to keep ordinary personal arms for armed self- and community-defense, especially against burglars, robbers, and rapists.This lack of understanding of the nature of the controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists is one of the two principal reasons, I believe, why the proponents of gun control have reached the erroneous conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective right" or "states' right" to keep and bear armsIt’s not my opinion, but documented historical FACT that I stand by and refuse to accept your or any other contrary OPINION that the right to bear arms in not an individual right.