legaleagle_45
New member
No where in here does it reference anything about protecting home and country. In fact there is no language that that would imply anything like this.
Consider the language "shall not be infringed". The wording suggests a preexisting right which is being protected, rather than a creation or grant of a new right. With that said, one must look at the nature of the right to arms which was protected from infringement.
Perhaps the most influential legal treatise of the late colonial era was Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone described the right to arms as protecting and enhancing two distinct natural rights, the natural right of resistance and the natural right of self preservation. The first is, for lack of better terminology, the militia right, while the self preservation aspect refers to self defense... a single right with a dual purpose. You can read the relevant portion of Blackstone here:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp
How did this dual right arise? Perhaps the best treatment of this subject is by Joyce Lee Malcolm in her book To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right . To abbreviate the book down to a few sentences, the right evolved out of a duty to keep arms for puposes of national defense. England began the militia sytem in the 800's under Alfred the Great. Various laws called the "Assieze of Arms" delineated what arms individual MUST own to fulfill this duty. Naturally enough, the weapons that they were required to keep for militia purposes, were also employed for personal purposes, such as self defense, hunting and the like. The use of the weapons for said personal purposes off set the financial burden of the legal obligation, making it more acceptable to the people at large, giving rise to an expectation that they could use these weapons for personal purposes. When this expectation was violated during the reign of Charles II and James II, the result was a Glorious Revolution and the affirmation of this expectation as a right delineated in the English Bill of Rights, circa 1689.
Ok, now to get to the founders... the issue arose due to the expansive authority given to the federal government over the militia in the proposed, but not yet ratified constitution. Debates in the various state ratifying conventions raised some concerns which gave rise to a demand for a Bill of Rights. The inclusion of the 2nd and its wording is based upon these debates. The state of Virginia was perhaps the most influential and it is certainly the most detailed transcript of the proceedings. These debates can be read here:
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va.htm
The dates where the militia was debated by such luminaries as Patrick Henry, James Mason and James Madison begins on June 14, 1788 about half way down here:
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_12.htm
and continues over 2 more days.
Hope that helps...
Last edited: