“The Historical Intent of the

Second Amendment”
John C. Davis
February 6, 2001
 In modern society there is a movement, which seeks to remove
the liberties of a large and patriotic segment of American society
ostensibly with the goal of protecting society. The liberty most directly
at risk is the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the second
amendment of our bill of rights.
Media sensationalism regarding the atrocities committed by a
few of the most twisted individuals from a population of millions feeds
this movement. Horrific acts are committed every day but they receive
the full attention of the media if and only if those crimes are
committed with firearms. The movement to disarm America does not
care if these maniacs attack kindergarten students with machetes and
baseball bats, or if they deliberately drive their Cadillacs over them in
busy playgrounds, these horrific acts do not support their agenda.
Those who are opposed to the second amendment also ignore the fact
that in the majority of these crimes a single law abiding citizen could
have ended the situation without the ensuing loss of life, had his or her
right to keep and bear arms not been infringed upon by
unconstitutional legislation.
With the all out assault being waged by gun control groups on
our right to keep and bear arms and the tacit support of these groups
by an overwhelming majority of the media. I believe that it is
imperative that freedom loving Americans understand the intent of our
founding fathers when they incorporated the second amendment into
the Bill of Rights. We must understand their intent if we are to protect
this essential right from those who would use the irresponsible and
atrocious acts of the sickest members of our society to strip us of the
one freedom which ensures the remainder.
The Questions
“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…”. This is the original text of what was
later to become the second amendment as put forward in the Madison
Resolution on June 8, 1789. The Madison Resolution contained twelve
articles and was submitted as the rough draft for a bill of rights. Of its
twelve articles, ten (including a modified version of the one quoted
previously) would be ratified by the states and become the basis of the
Bill of Rights.
When records concerning the possible need to amend the
Constitution are researched, one almost always finds the issue of the
peoples right to keep and bear arms arising. The framers of our
Constitution however, considered the subject important. While going
through several changes, the subject was never dropped. Our founding
fathers perceived need for this amendment, as well as their intent
when it was created is the focus of this document.
 It is necessary to look at the list of amendments proposed by the
various states in exploring the origins of the second amendment as
well as their reasons for including such provisions in their proposals. It
is equally important to consider the writings of the founding fathers to
understand why they worded it as they did and the importance they
attached to it. The third consideration regarding the perceived need for
such an amendment was fears and concerns of the founding fathers
including the general fear of standing armies in peacetime, the threat
of invasion by a foreign power, and the possibility of corruption in the
federal government.
The second amendment went through several changes before
being ratified. These changes have muddied the waters for those who
would attempt to interpret the framers’ intent in including it in the Bill
of Rights. What is now the second amendment had been the fourth of
twelve in the original Bill of Rights submitted to the states. The first
two of these twelve would never receive the two-thirds vote required
for ratification and were removed. Changes made to what was to
become the second amendment were made before its submission to
the states for ratification.
Once the need for this amendment is established, it is important
to research the debates of the house and senate regarding its final
form. By studying the debates it is possible to gain insight into what
the founding fathers thought was important and why. Much of the
debate focused on phrasing and the language of the amendment. By
exploring the arguments it is possible to find the meaning they
attached to what they obviously felt to be a critical piece of legislation.
The desires expressed by the founding fathers in these debates
become apparent as well as their concerns regarding government
manipulation.
Another area to be explored is the language and word order of
the final document. The founding fathers were seldom known to be
obtuse in their statements regarding the rights of man. Following a
detailed study of the text of the second amendment, I contend that
although the document is overly punctuated, its meaning is clear.
The language and etymology of the second amendment lead to
the third question about its creation. The question as to whether it was
intended to protect a state’s right to form militias or a citizen’s right to
keep and bear arms. This issue requires a contemporary definition of
the term militia as well as a look at the sentence structure utilized in
the second amendment. It becomes necessary to look at the
relationship between an armed citizenry and the militia, as well as its
perceived role. It is also necessary to establish which, if either, concept
was subordinate to the other and whether these roles were in conflict.
Why a Bill of Rights?
When the Constitution of the United States was signed on
September 17, 1787, and sent to the states for ratification, it lacked a
bill of rights. Delaware, the first state to ratify the document, did not
forward any proposed amendments and voted unanimously for
ratification. Nearly every other state convention, however, had
members expressing dissatisfaction with the document. Many of those
in opposition were anti-federalists who voiced concerns that the new
constitution concentrated too much power in the federal government
and did not protect the rights of individuals. The Constitution received
the votes necessary for passage but returns from the states included
various proposed amendments intended to protect the rights of the
people.
With an overwhelming majority of the states ratifying the
Constitution but with recommendations for up to 40 amendments, it
became apparent that a compromise between the federalists and anti-
federalists, including a bill of rights, was needed if the new government
was to succeed. In 1789 President Washington recommended that
congress accommodate public demands for a bill of rights, and James
Madison responded by introducing the twelve amendments mentioned
earlier.
Concerns Regarding Government Manipulation
On 17 October 1788, prior to submitting his resolution to
Congress, Madison had voiced concern about the possibility of
government using the Bill of Rights to take powers it was not entitled
to by the Constitution. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson he approved the
Idea of a bill of rights “provided it be so framed as not to imply powers
not meant to be included in the enumeration.”. It was Madison’s
contention that the granting of federal powers in the Constitution
prohibited the government from infringing on the rights of the people
since they had not been provided with the authority to do so, but by
setting out a list of rights it might be construed through omission that
the government had the power to effect those areas not specifically
protected.
On 20 February 1788, in issue 1 of “Marcus”, James Iredell voiced
his concern that by enumerating those rights reserved to the states, or
the people, the federal government could take upon itself any powers
not thus prohibited. It was Iredell’s concern that any such list would be
incomplete due to the magnitude of the task and that it would be
impossible to include all powers that the government was not intended
to have.
Despite the concerns voiced by people like Madison and Iredell,
the overwhelming desire on the part of the public pressured the
federal government to draft such a bill. Ironically, Madison, who had
originally been concerned about the implications of a bill of rights, had
to fight for the opportunity to propose one. It was these concerns,
however, which led to the incorporation of the ninth amendment which
stated that the Bill of Right was not intended to enumerate all the right
of the citizen and that it should not be interpreted to mean that a
citizen had no rights but those mentioned.
Why Legislate an Armed Citizenry?
When Madison drew up his resolution, he studied the lists of
proposed amendments from the states. Several states had submitted
proposals concerning the rights of the people to bear arms, the need
for militias, or a combination of the two. Among the proposed
amendments from Virginia was one stating, “that congress shall never
disarm any citizen except such as are or have been in actual
rebellion.”.
The right to keep and bear arms in defense of ones self and ones
nation had also been present in many of the documents from which
the founding fathers had drawn their inspiration when creating the
Constitution. Among the direct ancestors of our Bill of Rights was the
English Bill of Rights of 1689. The right of English citizens to bear arms
was covered in section seven of the Rights of the People, which stated,
“That the Subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their
defense suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.” This right
was specifically included to redress the grievances inflicted by the
crown when “Papists” were allowed arms while Protestants were
disarmed.
Various state constitutions, including those of South Carolina,
Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts, also contained
sections providing either a right or a requirement for citizens to be
armed for the defense of self and state. The perceived need for this
armed citizenry was to protect the state against the machinations of a
central government whether it be in London, Philadelphia or the
District of Columbia.
Fear of a Standing Army
The fear of standing armies was based on England’s use of
military force to attempt to control the colonists. While the colonists
had not been opposed to the presence of British troops during the
French and Indian wars, their presence during times of peace was
irksome to the colonists. The British military held itself separate and
superior to colonial civil authority, and it was through these troops that
George III enforced his various tax acts in the name of providing
security for the colonies. One of the major charges leveled against the
Crown by the colonists was that he had “kept among us in times of
peace standing armies.” While the Constitution forbid the maintaining
of standing armies during peacetime, it did provide the legislature with
the ability to raise an army, which was to be directly under civilian
control.
Personal Writings of our Founding Fathers
Many of the founding fathers made statements defending the
people’s rights to keep and bear arms and claiming that the purpose of
those arms was to keep those in power honest. The same men who
had written our Constitution and Bill of Rights warned against the
disarmament of citizens. The first President of the United States,
George Washington, stated, “When firearms go, all goes-we need them
every hour.”
Alexander Hamilton voiced his ideal of an armed populous when
in issue 28 of The Federalist he wrote “…In a single state, if the
persons [e]ntrusted 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 their courage and despair…”.
This idea of a citizen opposition to tyranny relies on the ability of
citizens to acquire suitable arms for such an endeavor, and it is
unlikely that our founding fathers would have intended that the
government be allowed to rescind that availability, thus removing the
governments only barrier to the usurpation of powers not granted it
under the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson considered practice in arms an essential part of
education. So integral to contemporary society was the use of arms
that in a report on the University of Virginia, Jefferson recommended
the practice of arms and warfare as a preferred method of exercise.
Jefferson based this opinion on the gymnastics of old World schools
and stated that by learning these skills at an early age, the students
were more likely to retain the later in life.
Political Debate Regarding the Second Amendment
When Madison stood before Congress on 8 June 1798, to remind
them that it was the day he had previously named for bringing forward
a bill of rights as provided for in article 5 of the Constitution, his
proposal initially met with resistance. Many members of Congress
voiced the opinion that the new government had not had time to prove
itself, and it was too early for such an endeavor. Madison, however,
argued that the surest way for the government to prove its good faith
to the public was to respond to their desires for a bill of rights. When
Madison’s motion was carried, he proposed a series of articles he had
compiled from the various states’ recommendations or their
established constitutions. Madison’s resolution was then sent to the
committee of the whole, where it would receive its first changes. On 22
August, the articles emerged, and the embryonic second amendment
had been modified to read “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 one
religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render
military service in person.” After two days the resolution, including this
version of what would become the second amendment, was passed by
the House and forwarded to the Senate for consideration.
 The Senate debate on the proposed article, which would become
the second amendment, is recorded in numerous sources dealing with
the Bill of Rights. Much of the background material regarding this and
other debates has been lost, was never recorded, or in the case of the
Senate debates, was kept secret. The only comprehensive record I was
able to uncover regarding senate actions on this amendment listed the
various motions, which senator made them, and whether they passed.
Much of what I have pieced together regarding the reasoning behind
the changes made during the Senate debate is based on conjecture,
later writings of those present, and a detailed knowledge of the
subject.
Much of this debate dealt with the exact wording of the
amendment and whether or not some version of this article would be
passed. While a discussion on the exact wording of the second
amendment will follow, several motions made during the debates
related to specific issues the senators wished to see reflected in the
resulting amendment rather than matters of word choice or grammar.
Wording of the Second Amendment
On 4 September 1789, the Senate agreed to amend the article
by dropping everything after the word infringed. While I was unable to
uncover any record as to why this was done, the most probable reason
is that the remainder regarding those “religiously scrupulous of
bearing arms,” was covered in the article, which would become the
first amendment.
On 12 September the Senate voted to drop the clause,
“compromised of the body of the people.” This statement undoubtedly
seemed extraneous since it was part of the contemporary definition of
the word militia, and it was likely dropped for the sake of brevity. I
believe that had this statement remained in the amendment, its intent
would have maintained far more clarity as the English language
evolved. While there remains no evidence that states brevity as the
Senates purpose in dropping this statement, it is the most probable
option.
Is One Clause Subordinate to the Other?
If anyone familiar with the rule of English language usage were
to look, without personal bias, at the sentence structure of the second
amendment, it would not be difficult for them to discern which clause
was the primary and which was the subordinate clause of the second
amendment. While the clause “the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed,” falls at the end of the sentence, it is
still the primary clause. This is readily apparent because between the
two clauses, it is the only one capable of standing alone as a sentence.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state,” is incapable of standing alone and therefore by commonly
accepted rules of English grammar both in the 18th century and today
is the subordinate clause. The rules of English usage from both the 18th
century and today also state that even if a subordinate clause is false,
this does not negate the primary clause and thus the right of the
people in this case is pre-eminent.
Once the primary clause has been discerned one can look at the
specific wording of it to discover its meaning. The subject is rights,
more specifically “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” In
every other case regarding the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, the
term “the people” is held to mean the body public, and not the states.
In this case the enemies of liberty try to twist the meaning of the word
militia from the subordinate clause to indicate that the amendment
refers only to the states’ right to form organized militias. This in and of
itself violates the grammatical rules of this sentence, as well as our
founding fathers own definition of the word militia, which we can read
in the embryonic version of the second amendment, which has already
been covered.
The action in this sentence is the passive construction “shall not
be infringed.” None of these words has had a significant change in
meaning since the eighteenth century when judged by dictionaries
from both periods. The first three words are simple enough, so let us
examine the last. The word infringed according to Webster’s College
Dictionary is defined in this form to mean to defeat, invalidate or to
encroach upon something, in this case the right to keep and bear
arms. In breaking down this sentence it becomes readily apparent that
our founding fathers intended this right to be inviolate, and the federal
government was forbidden to impose limits, restrictions, or
impediments upon it.
Is One Clause Dependent on the Other?
Since all able-bodied men between the ages of eighteen and
forty-five were considered to be the militia (life-spans and the roles of
women being considerably different now then they were in the 18th
century), the question becomes one of how they were to be regulated.
The fact that you were male, and met the age and physical
requirements of the day made you a member of the unorganized
militia, which had few recorded regulations. The primary regulation
regarding members of the unorganized militia regarded the
requirement to provide oneself with a suitable firearm for the military
standards of the day. In this fashion it can be shown that the clause
regarding the militia is dependent on the ability to acquire and keep
arms suitable for military use.
While the state has the ability to call forth the militia, the militia
has been shown to be the body of the people as a whole. By the
contemporary definition therefore the importance of the militia was
merely stated in the second amendment to emphasize the importance
of this right of the people, and it was not intended to be a statement
giving the states the right to form organized militias.
 Conclusion
While there is no body of evidence to suggest that our founding
fathers intended that the second amendment was to apply only to the
rights of the states to form organized militias, there is an
overwhelming amount of material, both supplementary, and structural
which indicates it was meant to ensure the peoples right to remain
armed according to accepted military standards without restriction by
the federal government. Therefore one can only conclude that this is
what our founding fathers intended even if they were unable to foresee
the confusion that changes in the English language and grammar
would create. I believe that had they been able to foresee these
grammatical as well as societal changes they would have retained the
statement regarding the nature of the militia to forgo such confusion.
If one can gain anything by reading the writings of our founding
fathers it regarding this issue, it would be an understanding that the
second amendment was included in the bill of rights in an attempt to
remove the temptation of the federal government to assume tyrannical
powers, as well as a defense against foreign invaders. The enemies of
the freedom hold the second amendment to be a carry over from an
age when natives were considered an obstacle to progress and
vigilante justice prevailed, but most have never looked at it for what it
is. The second amendment is the one guarantee for the security of the
remainder of our Bill of Rights, and is the best defense of our nation
against all enemies foreign, and domestic.
 Bibliography

Amendments to the Constitution: A Brief Legislative History: Prepared

For the Use of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee
on the Judiciary, United States Senate. Washington D.C./ U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1985
Freedom and Firearms Infobase. Merrimack, NH/ Lektra Press, 1994
Hamilton, Jay, Madison. The Federalist: And Other Contemporary
Papers on the Constitution of the United States. Chicago/ Scott,
Foresman and Company, 1894
Kammen, Michael. The Origins of the American Constitution: A
Documentary History. New York/ Penguin Books, 1986
Padover, Saul. The Complete Jefferson. New York/ Duell, Sloan &
Pearce, Inc., 1943
Padover, Saul. The Complete Madison. New York/ Harper & Brothers,
1953
Perry, Richard. Cooper, John. Sources of our Liberties: Documentary
Origins of Individual Liberties in the United States Constitution
and Bill of Rights. Rahway, NJ/ Quin & Boden Co., 1952