Who Doesn’t Understand the Second Amendment?

I have mentioned before that I write pretty extensively on the Second Amendment. Today I came across a YouTube video, admittedly old, but I had to respond to it. Watch the video, then read my refutation…

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRZJre8TsZI]

Frankly NO, you don’t understand the Second Amendment. There are two types of militia. There is the “conscript militia”, mentioned in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16. To keep it simple, we’ll just say that is composed of anyone with a Draft Card. Then, there is what the Founders would have called the “yeoman militia”. This is everyone capable of bearing arms in defense of the country. 

 The Constitution empowers Congress to administer and discipline the conscript militia. The militia of the Second Amendment is the “yeoman militia”; the militia of the People. The Second Amendment militia is not governed and disciplined by Congress.

The yeoman militia is self-regulated. You have to understand that in the 18th and 19th centuries, “well regulated” referred to the nature of the way things worked. For example, a well regulated clock; from that we get “regular as clockwork”. So, the militia was to work together “like a fine clock”. Well regulated meant that the militia functioned well in their defensive duties.

In the words of Alexander Hamilton, from The Federalist Papers, #29…

“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. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”

From this quote we can deduce two things:
1) If the Founders meant for government to control the militia, they would have used the verb, in the vernacular of the time, “to discipline”, as in “a well disciplined militia” (an objective Hamilton described as “futile” and “injurious”)
2) As Hamilton observes, well regulated meant the people were responsible for training themselves to arms, as well as supplying and equipping themselves. Though Hamilton thought this onerous, by demanding the Second Amendment, the States devolved this responsibility to the People.

Remember, the entire Bill of Rights is about the Rights. Of. The. People. Most of our Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) were lifted directly from the English, Declaration of Right, of 1689. Only the Tenth Amendment mentions States Rights, and even that is with reference to the people. All of the rights, of the Bill of Rights, are guaranteed to the People. Not even the 10th Amendment permits States to “regulate” the right to keep and bear arms, as that is pre-empted by the 14th Amendment.

When Madison proposed the Second Amendment, he submitted the text of the Massachusetts proposal, without change…
“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.” [Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Charles Hale, (1856), p. 86]

As you can see, the intent of this proposal was, clearly, to guarantee the rights of citizens to own and carry arms. In addition to the English, Common Law of self-defense, they recognized this as essential because, “a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country.” This was recognizing the role of militias in liberating Massachusetts from the British. As you can see, they granted the character of the militias as “well regulated”.

Understand, it was not “The Kings Militia” who rebelled against King George, it was the armed citizens of the colonies who formed ad hoc militias (such as The Sons of Liberty) to oppose what they perceived as tyrannical government, facing the troops of the King. With the exception of Boston, Massachusetts was essentially liberated before the Revolution began. In many communities around Massachusetts, militias had already repelled British soldiers who came to confiscate their powder, with the threat of arms, before the Battle of Concord. Both, the Boston Tea Party and the Battle of Concord were militia actions, by the Sons of Liberty.

However. it was not the Battle of Concord that drove the Massachusetts Governor to retreat to his ship in Boston Harbor. It was the successful rebellion of community militias all over Massachusetts. These militias were not controlled by the Colonial Government in any way. Originally, many were formed in communities throughout the colonies, especially in New England, primarily for community protection and policing (analogous to today’s Neighborhood Watch), who joined with militias like The Sons of Liberty. Even after the Continental Army was formed, the militias were not “controlled” by the Army, but often coordinated with it.

The Founders were guaranteeing, not just the people’s right to own and carry arms, but the right of the people to form militias, as well. This has never been tested in Court, but as things stand in our society today, I am sure that at some point this will come up. Perhaps relative to firearm licensing, perhaps something else, but eventually, it will be challenged in court.