Tucker V State: Fill & Download for Free

About the time people started thinking too much about it because they have an agenda and a complete lack of understanding of what was written. Some time ago it was understood that a disarmed population is easy to control. That any event could be manipulated to further the anti-gun agenda by using emotion to drive said agenda.Gun Facts | Second Amendment, Origins and Court RulingsJustification clause: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,”Rights clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause. 1For a full discussion of how the Second Amendment was created and revised, see “Origin of the Second Amendment” at the bottom of this page.Myth: The Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment is not an individual rightFact: In D.C. v Heller the Supreme Court (2008) firmly established the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, as they had in Cruikshank and Dred Scott.Fact: In McDonald v Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court concluded the right is incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment.Fact: Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment or the state analogs to it, only 10 have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846). 2Myth: The Second Amendment is a collective right, not an individual rightFact: St. George Tucker, any early legal commentator and authority of the original meaning of the constitution wrote in Blackstone’s Commentaries “… nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people.” 3Fact: The Second Amendment was listed in a Supreme Court ruling as an individual right. 4Fact: The Supreme Court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. 5Fact: In 22 of the 27 instances where the Supreme Court mentions the Second Amendment, they quote the rights clause and not the justification clause.Fact: Courts disagree. “We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training” and “We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment” 6Fact: Citizens disagree. 62% believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while a mere 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias. 7Fact: There are 23 state constitutions with RKBA clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only three have “for the common defense….” or other “collective rights” clauses. 8Fact: James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was “calculated to secure the personal rights of the people”. He never excluded the Second Amendment from this statement.Fact: Patrick Henry commented on the Swiss militia model (still in use today) noting that they maintain their independence without “a mighty and splendid President” or a standing army. 9Fact: “The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion.” 10Fact: Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution said: “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.”Myth: The Heller Decision created new lawFact: In the Dred Scott case of 1856, the Supreme Court listed the protected rights of citizens and explicitly listed the right to keep and bear arms, and gave this right equal weight to the other freedoms enumerated in the constitution.Fact: In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), the Supreme Court ruled:An individual right to arms predated the constitution.The Second Amendment was a prohibition against Congress from disarming citizens.Myth: The Second Amendment was established to control slavesFact: The basis of the Second Amendment arose from the British disarming Americans in the time leading up to the revolution. The first state to declare a civilian right to arms (1776) was Pennsylvania, a non-slave state. Vermont (1777) and Massachusetts (1780) did so as well, and all this occurred before the Second Amendment was drafted. When slaves were emancipated, the Freedmen Bureau Act provided emancipated slaves “the constitutional right to bear arms.”Myth: The “militia” clause is to arm the National GuardFact: “Militia” is a Latin abstract noun, meaning “military service”, not an “armed group”, and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. To the Romans, “military service” included law enforcement and disaster response. Today “militia” might be more meaningfully translated as “defense service”, associated with a “defense duty”, which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise. When we are alone, we are all militias of one. In the broadest sense, militia is the exercise of civic virtue. 11Fact: The Dick Act of 1903 designated the National Guard as the “organized militia” and that all other citizens were the “unorganized militia” – thus the National Guard is only part of the militia, and the whole militia is composed of the population at large. Before 1903, the National Guard had no federal definition as part of the militia at all.Fact: The first half of the Second Amendment is called the “justification clause”. Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis. 12Fact: The origin of the phrase “a well regulated militia” comes from a 1698 treatise “A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias” by Andrew Fletcher, in which the term “well regulated” was equated with “well-behaved” or “disciplined”. 13Fact: “We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government’s power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.” 14Fact: “The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard …” 15Fact: Most of the 13 original states (and many colonies/territories that became states after ratification of the Constitution and before or shortly after ratification of the Bill of Rights) had their own constitutions, and it is from these that the original Bill of Rights was distilled. The state constitutions of that time had many “right to keep and bear arms” clauses that clearly guaranteed an individual right. Some examples include:Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.Kentucky: … the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; … The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Vermont: … the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.Myth: The Second Amendment allows Congress to regulate ownership of guns for militia purposesFact: The phrase “well regulated” was common in the constitutional era, and described things that were in proper order or function. It was not a writ of authority. Borrowing from the Oxford English Dictionary, these examples, both before and after composition of the Second Amendment, show the usage:1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”Myth: U.S. v. Cruikshank denied an individual right to bear armsFact: The court ruled that both the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and the 1st Amendment right to assembly were “preexisting rights”, and that it was incumbent upon the states to enforce that right. Specifically, the court ruled:The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. …Myth: U.S. v. Miller said that the Second Amendment is not an individual rightFact: The Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had militia use, and the court wanted evidence presented confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons. Since no evidence was taken at the trial level in lower courts, they remanded the case for a new trial. Specifically, the court said:“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”Fact: Even the US government agreed. Here are some sentences from the brief filed by the government in the appeal to the Supreme Court:“The Second Amendment does not grant to the people the right to keep and bear arms, but merely recognizes the prior existence of that right and prohibits its infringement by Congress.”“The ‘arms’ referred to in the Second Amendment are, moreover, those which ordinarily are used for military or public defense purposes …”“The Second Amendment does not confer upon the people the right to keep and bear arms; it is one of the provisions of the Constitution which, recognizing the prior existence of a certain right, declares that it shall not be infringed by Congress. Thus, the right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution and therefore is not dependent upon that instrument for its source.”Fact: The Federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals holds that the Miller case protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. “Although an individual’s right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller …” 16Fact: Federal courts reject the myth. “We conclude that Miller does not support the [government’s] collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment.” 17They continue, “There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words ‘we the people’ have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere …”.Summary of various court decisions concerning gun rightsDecisions that explicitly recognized that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to purchase, possess or carry firearms, and that it limits the authority of both federal and state governments:Parker vs. D.C., Fed (2007), confirmed an individual right to keep arms and overturned a handgun ban (this case later became the Heller case)U.S. vs. Emerson, 5 Fed (1999), confirmed an individual right requiring compelling government interest for regulationNunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846), struck down a ban on the sale of small, easily concealed handguns as violating the Second AmendmentState v. Chandler, 5 http://La.An. 489, 490, 491 (1850), upheld a ban on concealed carry, but acknowledged that open carry was protected by the Second AmendmentSmith v. State, 11 http://La.An. 633, 634 (1856), upheld a ban on concealed carry, but recognized as protected by Second Amendment – “arms there spoken of are such as are borne by a people in war, or at least carried openly”State v. Jumel, 13 http://La.An. 399, 400 (1858), upheld a ban on concealed carry, but acknowledged a Second Amendment right to carry openly.Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 401, 402 (1859), upheld an enhanced penalty for manslaughter with a Bowie knife, but acknowledged that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to possess arms for collective overthrow of the governmentIn Re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, 70 Pac. 609, 101 http://Am.St.Rep. 215, 216 (1902), struck down a ban on open carry of a revolver in Lewiston, Idaho as violating both Second Amendment and Idaho Constitutional guaranteeState v. Hart, 66 Ida. 217, 157 P.2d 72 (1945), upheld a ban on concealed carry as long as open carry was allowed based on both Second Amendment and Idaho Constitutional guaranteeState v. Nickerson, 126 Mont. 157, 166 (1952), striking down a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, acknowledging a right to carry based on Second Amendment and Montana Constitutional guaranteeU.S. v. Hutzell, 8 Iowa, 99-3719, (2000) (cite in dictum that “an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-79 (1939).Decisions that recognized the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess or carry firearms, but only limiting the Federal government’s authority:U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876) (limiting use of the Enforcement Act of 1870 so that Klansmen could not be punished for mass murder and disarming of freedmen).State v. Workman, 35 http://W.Va. 367, 373 (1891) (upholding a ban on carry of various concealable arms).State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 (1921) (overturning a ban on open carry of pistols based on North Carolina Const., but acknowledging Second Amendment protected individual right from federal laws).Decisions in which the Second Amendment was argued or raised as a limitation on state laws, and in which the court ruled that it only limited the Federal government, tacitly acknowledging that the right was individual in nature:Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (50 Tenn.) 165, 172, 173 (1871).Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am.Rep. 556, 557, 558 (1876); State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472, 473, 474 (1874).Dunne v. People, 94 Ill. 120, 140, 141 (1879); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 266 (1886) (upholding a ban on armed bodies marching through the streets).People v. Persce, 204 N.Y. 397, 403 (1912); In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633, 636, 226 P. 914 (1924) (upholding a ban on resident aliens possessing handguns).Decisions in which the Second Amendment was implied to guarantee an individual right, though unclear as to whether it limited only the Federal government or states as well, because the type of arm in question wasn’t protected:English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476, 477 (1872).State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458, 459 (1875) (upholding a ban on carrying of handguns, Bowie knives, sword-canes, spears, and brass knuckles).People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E.2d 320, 322, 323 (1950) (overturning a conviction for carrying a concealed handgun and acknowledging that the right in the Second Amendment was individual).Guida v. Dier, 84 Misc.2d 110, 375 N.Y.S.2d 827, 828 (1975) (denying that “concealable hand weapons” were protected by the Second Amendment, but acknowledging that an individual right protects other firearms).Decisions in which the Second Amendment has been classed with other individual rights, with no indication that it was not an individual right:Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281, 282, 17 S.Ct. 826, 829 (1897); U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 1061 (1990).Decisions that could have been very much shorter if the court had simply denied that the Second Amendment protected AN INDIVIDUAL right:U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (the Supreme Court upholding the National Firearms Act of 1934, after district judge released defendants on the grounds that it violated Second Amendment).Origin of the Second AmendmentBefore the United States Constitution or Bill of Rights existed, most of the thirteen original states had clauses in their constitutions protecting the right to keep and bear arms. When the time came for Congress to draft the Bill of Rights, states submitted clauses from their constitutions that they thought should be added to the Federal Bill of Rights.Three predominant arms clauses existed at that time (many states had word-for-word copies from other state constitutions and the redundant versions are not mentioned herein).Pennsylvania (1776): That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. (Simplified in 1790 to read “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”)Vermont (1777): That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.Massachusetts (1780): The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.North Carolina (1776): That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.We can see in these state constitution clauses the conjoined purposes as viewed by the people at the time that the 2nd Amendment was drafted.Calls for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from State Ratification ConventionsFive states that ratified the Constitution sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All of these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. The relevant parts of these written demands are:New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.Virginia: … Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.New York: … That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia’s demand, but with, “the body of the people, trained to arms,” instead of, “the body of the people trained to arms.”Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia’s demand, but with, “the body of the people capable of bearing arms,” instead of, “the body of the people trained to arms,” and with a, “militia shall not be subject to martial law,” proviso as in New York’s.Second Amendment drafting, proposals, and editingJames Madison had the duty of drafting the Bill of Rights from proposed amendments submitted by the states, and most coming from state constitutions. The Bill of Rights went through several revisions. The initial version of the 2nd Amendment read as follows:The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.The second drafting of the 2nd Amendment saw a rearrangement of the justification and rights clauses, but no change in the intents and purposes therein:A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.Notice that in the original draft, Madison used the phrase “free country” as the object of what is protected by the militia. In subsequent drafts, the word “state” was substituted. This is important because the concept of “state” and “country” are interchangeable, whereas “states” (plural) and “country” are not. Throughout the rest of the Constitution, when the states and their powers were defined, the plural was always used but in the 2nd Amendment it was not. Clearly, the intent of militia protection defined in the 2nd Amendment was to protect a form of government, not define the power of the several states.Four further revisions removed objectionable concepts (such as the “conscientious objector” clause). On September 9, 1789, a member of the Senate proposed adding “for the common defense” onto the draft of the Second Amendment. In other words, the proposed wording of the amendment would have read:A well regulated militia being the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear arms for the common defense, shall not be infringed.The proposed change was voted down. This is instructive because some believe that the current wording of the amendment exists specifically for collective/common/mutual defense, and has no bearing on individual self defense. However, the Senate considered adding this restriction and rejected it.It is clear from these origins and first drafts, and from contemporary commentaries on the clause, that the original intent was to secure an individual right. The commentaries of St. George Tucker (The American Blackstone) and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, both of whom were federal jurists and chronologically close to the authoring of the amendment, bear this out.Arms clauses of states that joined shortly after the Second Amendment was ratifiedAlso worth review are arms clauses in the constitutions of states that joined the Union shortly after ratification of the Bill of Rights. These demonstrate the contemporary understanding of the amendment and the rights of the people:Kentucky (1792): That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.Tennessee (1796): That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.Kentucky (1799): That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.Ohio (1802): That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power.Indiana (1816): That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.Mississippi (1817): Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State.Connecticut (1818): Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.Maine (1819): Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned.Alabama (1819): That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.Missouri (1820): That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned.Notes:Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLAFor the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Clayton Cramer, Praeger Press, 1994Blackstone’s Commentaries, St. George Tucker, Vol 1. Note D. Part 6. Restraints on Powers of Congress (1803)Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, U.S. v. Cruikshank and othersUnited States v. MillerU.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331Associated Television News Survey, August 1999, 1,007 likely votersFor the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Clayton Cramer, Praeger Press, 1994, cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)Where Kids and Guns Do Mix, Stephen P. Halbrook, Wall Street Journal, June 2000Blackstone’s Commentaries, St. George Tucker, Volume 1, Appendix Note D., 1803 – Tucker’s comments provide a number of insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice.Militia, The Constitution SocietyEugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA, Testimony of Eugene Volokh on the Second Amendment, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Sept. 23, 1998.This document was widely published during the colonial and revolutionary periods, and was the basis for state and federal ‘bills of rights’U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331U.S. v. Hutzel, 8 Iowa, No. 99-3719U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

Honestly, I think he feels like he’s a moderate but on this issue, he’s really not. He severely underplays the downside to increased gun control while at the same time ignoring critical facts in favor of the 2nd Amendment.First, he makes the claim that none of the founding fathers thought individual had a right to own weapons. Well, that’s not exactly true. George Mason, who helped author the amendment, said, “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."And then Samuel Adams, wroteAnd that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …Then he makes an assertion that the dominant legal theory was that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the formation of militias. Well, the leading legal treatise author for American leadership at the time was St. George Tucker. He wrote,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.Now that’s pretty definitive. The English Bill of Rights of 1688 had a limited right to keep and bear arms, but explicitly left open that Parliament could set limits on it. The actual right from 1689 reads,That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;Even a glance would show that there is clearly an expansive right that is being protected and the government barred from infringing upon.Third, I disagree with his view of the 2nd Amendment. He seems to take the position that government has granted the right. However, the text does not support that. It saysA 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 text clearly states that the right already exists and that the government is prevented from infringing upon that right. If it were creating a right, then it would say “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the people shall have the right to keep and bear Arms.” In the original, the Right is recognized as preexisting and protected. In my proposed alternate version, the right is not preexisting to the Constitution and therefore originated with the government.Also, his take that a fundamental right is one that isn’t written down seems suspect. That would transform many of what we consider fundamental rights.The fourth problem I have is with his analysis of Presser v Illinois. That reaffirms United States v Cruikshank which states that the 2nd Amendment is a bar to the federal government, not the state government. It needs to be understood that the Supreme Court held that not all federal rights were applicable against state action. The doctrine became known as “selective incorporation”. Whether you agree or disagree with it (personally I disagree) that is not largely a moot point. The 2nd Amendment was incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment in Macdonald v Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010). Furthermore, the Presser court held that while the state could under its laws infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear armsthe State cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question our view, prohibit people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this affect.Now, while that grants the state the ability to regulate firearms, it also creates a maximum point tonwhich they may regulate firearm ownership.Fortunately, this case is now largely supersede by Macdonald v Chicago.Fifth, his argument about the Supreme Court changing the 2nd Amendment to something new is suspect. As mentioned above, the founders intended people to be free to keep and bear arms. But more than that, look at the construction of the amendment as it is written:The court was actually restoring the proper reading of the Amendment.The rest of the proposals veers into the territory of AWB. He seems to favor it. The studies indicate that it really did nothing when it came lowering the homicide rate or suicide rate. Banning them now? Why? AR-15 and AK pattern rifles, indeed any type of rifle, are not even the weapon of choice for homicides. They account for about 372 gun murders in 2016. Blunt instruments and knives account for far more.He portrays himself as knowledgeable. If he is, then his piece is deliberately slanted in favor of gun control to the extent that Bloomberg might contribute to his Patreon.

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.