"Rights of the citizen declared to be --".
Elliot's Debates
Take a close look, if you will, at the photo copied page below. The copy is of Page XV from Volume I of Elliot's Debates from our United States Government website "The Library of Congress" which has a section named "American Memory", (linked to actual page). Pay particular attention to the second line down, (on the left hand side). Which reads "Rights of the citizen declared to be --". Then look at the fourth line down below the aforementioned heading that reads "To keep and bear arms". Another line on the page that is of interest is line number sixteen, (Page 9); "That the enumeration of certain rights shall not operate constructively against the retained rights". Below the photo copy is a description of Elliot's Debates, also directly quoted from the United States government website.
Below the photo copied page, and United States government description of Elliot's Debates, you will find quotes from the Debates that covered our Second Amendment Right in detail. After which, you will discover quotes from the top, and highly respected, U.S. Constitutional, and other pertinent, authorities. These quotations prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the government(s) have no delegated authority whatsoever over the Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms. That this was one of the specific rights that was set aside, and reserved exclusively, by We The People. The government(s) are presently Usurping its authority and acting outside the bounds of We The People's Constitution.
Volume 1 Page xv;
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution is a five-volume collection compiled by Jonathan Elliot in the mid-nineteenth century. The volumes remain the best source for materials about the national government's transitional period between the closing of the Constitutional Convention in September 1787 and the opening of the First Federal Congress in March 1789. On September 17, 1787, the Continental Congress accepted the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention and agreed to distribute the proposed constitution to the states; each state was then to elect delegates to a state convention to approve or disapprove the new constitution. The Constitution would take effect upon ratification by the conventions of nine of the thirteen states.
Elliot's Debates collects the documents pertinent to the discussions on ratification: the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Journal of the Constitutional Convention (from a version that is earlier and less accurate than that in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787), the text of the proposed Constitution, and the debates in the various states. The Federalist Papers also presents a vital part of the debate over the Constitution.
Elliot's Debates --DIGEST OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Elliot's Debates, Volume 1
"The question was then put, that the House do agree to the said resolution as amended, viz.
"Resolved, That the Clerk be directed to procure as many copies of Elliot's Debates on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, as shall be sufficient to supply each new member with a copy; and, also, that the Clerk of the House furnish to each member of the present House of Representatives, who has not already received them, a copy of the volume of Land Laws, and of the Journals to the end of the thirteenth Congress, which were published by order of Congress,
"And passed in the affirmative."
- Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, January 13, 1834.
**********
"...In addition to the original rights secured to him in the first article of amendments, [Fourteenth Amendment] he had secured the free exercise of his religious belief, and freedom of speech and the press. Then he had secured to him the right to keep and bear arms in his defense. Then, after that, his home was secured in time of peace from the presence of a soldier; and,still further, sir, his house, his papers, and his effects were protected against unreasonable seizure...."
"'Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights-common law rights-of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, while the ten Amendments, as limitations on power, only apply to the Federal government, and not to the States, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment as to such rights limits state power, as the ten Amendments had limited Federal power..."
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"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."
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
**********
"Mr. MADISON thought the regulation of the militia naturally appertaining to the authority charged with the public defence...."
- August 18. (1787), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Vol. 5]
**********
"A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights. The mutability of the laws of the States is found to be a serious evil. The injustice of them has been so frequent and so flagrant as to alarm the most stedfast friends of Republicanism. I am persuaded I do not err in saying that the evils issuing from these sources contributed more to that uneasiness which produced the Convention, and prepared the public mind for a general reform, than those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation to its immediate objects. A reform therefore which does not make provision for private rights, must be materially defective."
- James Madison, letter to Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 24, 1787.
**********
"If the clause stands as it is now, it will take from the state
legislatures what divine Providence has given to every individual--
the means of self-defence. Unless it be moderated in some degree,
it will ruin us, and introduce a standing army."
- George Mason, The Debates in the Several State Conventions,
**********
"Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the friends of the opposition have
to act cautiously. We must make a firm stand before we decide. I
was heard to say, a few days ago, that the sword and purse were
the two great instruments of government; and I professed great
repugnance at parting with the purse, without any control, to the
proposed system of government. And now, when we proceed in this
formidable compact, and come to the national defence, the sword,
I am persuaded we ought to be still more cautious and circumspect;
for I feel still more reluctance to surrender this most valuable
of rights.
"The honorable member who has risen to explain several parts of
the system was pleased to say, that the best way of avoiding the
danger of a standing army, was, to have the militia in such a way
as to render it unnecessary; and that, as the new government would
have power over the militia, we should have no standing army--it
being unnecessary. This argument destroys itself. It demands a
power, and denies the probability of its exercise. There are
suspicions of power on one hand, and absolute and unlimited
confidence on the other. I hope to be one of those who have
a large share of suspicion. I leave it to this house, if there be
not too small a portion on the other side, by giving up too much to
that government. You can easily see which is the worst of two
extremes. Too much suspicion may be corrected. If you give too
little power to-day, you may give more to-morrow. But the reverse
of the proposition will not hold. If you give too much power to-day,
you cannot retake it to-morrow: for to-morrow will never come for
that purpose. If you have the fate of other nations, you will never
see it. It is easier to supply deficiencies of power than to take
back excess of power. This no man can deny.
"But, says the honorable member, Congress will keep the militia
armed; or, in other words, they will do their duty. Pardon me if
I am too jealous and suspicious to confide in this remote possibility.
My honorable friend went on a supposition that the American rulers,
like all others, will depart from their duty without bars and checks.
No government can be safe without checks. Then he told us they had no
temptation to violate their duty, and that it would be their interest
to perform it. Does he think you are to trust men who cannot have
separate interests from the people? It is a novelty in the political
world (as great a novelty as the system itself) to find rulers without
private interests, and views of personal emoluments, and ambition. His
supposition, that they will not depart from their duty, as having no
interest to do so, is no satisfactory answer to my mind. This is no
check. The government may be most intolerable and destructive,
if this be our only security.
"My honorable friend attacked the honorable gentleman with universal
principles--that, in all nations and ages, rulers have been actuated
by motives of individual interest and private emoluments, and that in
America it would be so also. I hope, before we part with this great
bulwark, this noble palladium of safety, we shall have such checks
interposed as will render us secure. The militia, sir, is our ultimate
safety. We can have no security without it. But then, he says that the
power of arming and organizing the militia is concurrent, and to be
equally exercised by the general and state governments. I am sure, and
I trust in the candor of that gentleman, that he will recede from that
opinion, When his recollection will be called to the particular clause
which relates to it.
"As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power
between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming,
organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them
as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state
legislatures is given the power of appointing the officers, and training
the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." I observed
before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent
in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, &c.,
concurrently, Congress, has a concurrent power of appointing the officers,
and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To
admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry on into endless absurdity--
that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the
other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power
of arming them, &c., and that the State governments shall have exclusive
power of appointing the officers, &c. Let me put it in another light.
"May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be
concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets
of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a Very great cost, we shall be doubly
armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people
afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one Who is able may have
a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to
have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many
years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far
from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without.
limitation or bounds, how will your militia be afraid? You trust to chance;
for sure I am that that nation which shall trust its liberties in other
hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a
concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other
words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the
states Shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only
wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to
be the foundation of our civil liberties; and when you speak of arming the
militia by a concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication
will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon
you. You would be laughed at by the whole world, for trusting
your safety implicitly to implication.
"The argument of my honorable friend was, that rulers might tyrannize. The
answer he received was, that they will not. In saying that they would not,
he admitted they might. In this great, this essential part of the Constitution,
if you are safe, it is not from the Constitution, but from the virtues of the
men in government. If gentlemen are willing to trust themselves and
posterity to so slender and improbable a chance, they have greater
strength of nerves than I have.
"The honorable gentleman, in endeavoring to answer the question why the
militia were to be called forth to execute the laws, said that the civil
power would probably do it. He is driven to say, that the civil power may do
it instead of the militia. Sir, the military power ought not to interpose
till the civil power refuse. If this be the spirit of your new Constitution,
that the laws are to be enforced by military coercion, we may easily
divine the happy consequences which will result from it. The civil power
is not to be employed at all. If it be, show me it. I read inattentively,
and could see nothing to warrant a belief that the civil power can be called
for. I should be glad to see the power that authorizes Congress to do so. The
sheriff will be aided by military force. The most wanton excesses may be
committed under color of this; for every man in office, in the states, is to
take an oath to support it in all its operations. The honorable gentleman
said, in answer to the objection that the militia might be marched from
New Hampshire to Georgia, that the members of the government would not
attempt to excite the indignation of the people. Here, again, we have the
general unsatisfactory answer, that they will be virtuous, and that there is
no danger.
"Will gentlemen be satisfied with an answer which admits of dangers
and abuses if they be wicked? Let us put it of their power to do mischief.
I am convinced, there is no safety in the paper on the table as it stands now.
I am sorry to have an occasion to pass a eulogium on the British government,
as gentlemen may object to it. But how natural it is, when comparing
deformities to beauty, to be struck with the superiority of the British
government to that system! In England, self-love -- self-interest --
powerfully stimulates the executive magistrate to advance the prosperity of
the nation. In the most distant part, he feels the loss of his subjects.
He will see the great advantage of his posterity inseparable from the
felicity of his people. Man is a fallen creature, a fallible being, and
cannot be depended on without self-love. Your President will not have
the same motives of self-love to impel him to favor your interests. His
political character is but transient, and he will promote, as much as
possible, his own private interests. He will conclude, the constant
observation has been that he will abuse his power, and that it is expected.
The king of England has a more permanent interest. His stock, his family,
is to continue in possession of the same emolument. The more flourishing
his nation, the more formidable and powerful is he. The sword and purse
are not united, in that government, in the same hands, as in this system.
Does not infinite security result from a separation?
"But it is said that our Congress are more responsible than the British
Parliament. It appears to me that there is no real, but there may be some
specious responsibility. If Congress, in the execution of their unbounded
powers, shall have done wrong, how will you come at them to punish them,
if they are at the distance of five hundred miles? At such a great distance,
they will evade responsibility altogether. If you have given up your militia,
and. Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your
existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests
are not affected by your infelicity. If Congress are to arm us exclusively,
the man of New Hampshire may vote for or against it, as well as the Virginian.
The great distance and difference between the two places render it possible
that the people of that country can know or pursue what will promote our
convenience. I therefore contend that, if, Congress do not arm the militia,
we ought to provide for it ourselves."
"...I will speak another time, and will not fatigue the committee now. I
think the friends of the opposition ought to make a pause here; for I can
see no safety to my country, if you give up this power."
- Patrick Henry, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the
Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3],
**********
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons.
They are left in full possession of them."
- Mr. Zachariah Johnson, The Debates in the Several
State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3],
(Virgina), June 25, 1788
**********
"I here close my examination into those natural rights, which, in my
humble opinion, it is the business of civil government to protect,
and not to subvert, and the exercise of which it is the duty of civil
government to enlarge, and not to restrain. I go farther; and now
proceed to show, that in peculiar instances, in which those rights
can receive neither protection nor reparation from civil government,
they are, notwithstanding its institution, entitled still to that
defence, and to those methods of recovery, which are justified and
demanded in a state of nature.
"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature,
is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law.
This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it
extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined
merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to
whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of
his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person
of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one,
whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity
as well as justice."
- James Wilson, 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792
(Signed the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to
the Constitutional Convention and Supreme Court Justice).
**********
“The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary
disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution,
and mutual relations of men and things. While these continue to be the same,
it must continue to be the same also. This immutability of nature's laws has
nothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since
he himself is the author of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid
such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very
constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself.
This necessity, far from limiting or diminishing his perfections, adds to their
external character, and points out their excellency.
“The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are
equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the
law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man,
has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction.
“This law, or right reason, as Cicero calls it, is thus beautifully described
by that eloquent philosopher. "It is, indeed," says he, "a true law, conformable
to nature, diffused among all men, unchangeable, eternal. By its commands, it
calls men to their duty: by its prohibitions, it deters them from vice. To
diminish, to alter, much more to abolish this law, is a vain attempt. Neither
by the senate, nor by the people, can its powerful obligation be dissolved.
It requires no interpreter or commentator. It is not one law at Rome, another
at Athens; one law now, another hereafter: it is the same eternal and immutable
law, given at all times and to all nations: for God, who is its author and
promulgator, is always the sole master and sovereign of mankind."
- James Wilson, [The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L.L.D.;
Chap. III Of the Law of Nature].
**********
"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."
"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."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, (1803)
**********
"The right of self-defense in these cases is founded in the law of
nature, and is not, and cannot be superceded by the law of society.
In those instances, says Sir Michael Foster, the law, with great
propriety, and in strict justice, considers the individual to be
under the protection of the law of nature."
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden
foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic Usurpation of
Power by rulers. The Right of the Citizens to Keep and Bear Arms has
JUSTLY been considered, as the PALLADIUM of the LIBERTIES of The
Republic; since it offers a strong moral check AGAINST the Usurpation
and Arbitrary Power of rulers; and will generally...ENABLE the PEOPLE
to RESIST and TRIUMPH OVER THEM."
- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice,
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
**********
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by
any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to
disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under
some general pretense 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."
- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829).
(Appointed by President George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania in 1791).
**********
"...Again, a large part of the advantages enjoyed by one who has a
RIGHT are NOT created by the law. The law does NOT enable me to use
or abuse this book which lies before me. That is a physical power
which I have without the aid of the law. What the law does is simply
to PREVENT other men to a greater or less extent from INTERFEREING
with my use or abuse. And this analysis and example APPLY to the case
of POSSESSION, as well as to OWNERSHIP."
"Such being the DIRECT WORKING of the LAW in the case of possession,
one would think that the ANIMUS or INTENT most nearly parallel to its
movement would be the intent of which we are in search. If what the
law does is to EXCLUDE others from INTERFERING with the object, it
would seem that the intent which the law should require is an INTENT
to EXCLUDE others. I believe that such an INTENT is ALL that Common
Law deems needful, and that on PRINCIPLE no more should be REQUIRED."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law - LECTURE VI.,
POSSESSION. PARA. 27 Sent. 9-13
**********
"Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the
judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power
of the People is SUPERIOR to both; and that where the will of the
legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in OPPOSITION to that
of The People, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, the judges ought to be
governed by the LATTER rather than the former. They ought to regulate
their decisions by the FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, rather than by those which
are NOT fundamental.
"But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate
authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason
of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed.
They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to
the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that
accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution,
it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter
and disregard the former."
"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to
be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order,
among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to
their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and
peculiar province of the courts. A CONSTITUTION is, in FACT, and MUST
be regarded by the judges, as a FUNDAMENTAL law."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
**********
"Under the proposed Constitution, the federal acts will take effect
without the necessary intervention of the individual States."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 54
**********
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803).
**********
CONCLUSION
It has been held that the reason Congress has been able to regulate firearms, in the hands of We The People, is because of Article I, Section VIII of the United States Constitution. Which specifies that Congress was delegated authority over the 'Militia'. The impression that this delegated authority extends to the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as the evidence presented herein plainly shows, is false. It has also been contended that state and municipal governments somehow have the power to regulate firearms. And, again, that supposition is proven equally false here as well.
Witness:
There are two clauses contained in Amendment II, one is declaratory and the other is restrictive, as evidenced;
Preamble to the Bill of Rights -
"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;"
"Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:"
DECLARATORY clause: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
RESTRICTIVE clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
One of the main reasons for enumerating this Right, which is clearly spelled out in The Federalist Papers, is for We The People to be able to defend ourselves against the arbitrary rule of a government that has become tyrannical. Does it make sense to give government control over the most effective means of 'putting it down' in the event it becomes tyrannical? Hardly. In addition, enumeration of Amendment II, was meant to safeguard the right and duty of the citizen to self-preservation. Which has long been held, (for several centuries), as the First Law of Nature.
The FACT of the matter, is that The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed. Not by anyone in government, nor by anyone in the private sector.
The only time that a United States citizen can rightfully be disarmed, is if they are imprisoned. And there are valid arguments against even that being morally or legally sound in principle.
The Right is a God given, Fundamental, Natural, Inherent, Indisputable and Unalienable Right.
The Right cannot be abridged, regulated, trampled upon, or negated in any way, shape, nor form, by anyone - PERIOD. In FACT, the opposite is true. For one of the main reasons for instituting our government to begin with was to SECURE our Liberties;
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
**********
"They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds. With respect
to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped
that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to
infringe as little as possible the rights of human nature. This
will result from their integrity. They should, from prudence,
abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are
not, however, expressly restrained. But whether they will
INTERMEDDLE with that PALLADIUM of our liberties or not, I leave
you to determine."
- Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 06/16/1788.
(Mr. Henry was one of the most vocal proponents for a Bill of Rights).
**********
"You, Sir, triumph in the supposed illegality of this body;
but, granting your supposition were true, it would be a matter
of no real importance. When the first principles of civil
society are violated, and the rights of a whole people are
invaded, the common forms of municipal law are not to be
regarded. Men may then betake themselves to the law of nature;
and, if they but conform their actions, to that standard, all
cavils against them, betray either ignorance or dishonesty.
There are some events in society, to which human laws cannot
extend; but when applied to them lose all their force and
efficacy. In short, when human laws contradict or discountenance
the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential
rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws,
and so become null and void."
- Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 23 Feb. 1775
Papers 1:86--89, 121--22, 135--36
**********
"Knowing of the war when she left Jamaica, & that
our coast was lined with small French privateers,
she armed for her defence, & took one of those
commissions usually called letters of marque. She
arrived here safely without having had any rencounter
of any sort. Can it be necessary to say that a
merchant vessel is not a privateer? That tho' she
has arms to defend herself in time of war, in the
course of her regular commerce, this no more makes
her a privateer, than a husbandman following his
plough, in time of war, with a knife or pistol in
his pocket, is thereby made a soldier? The occupation
of a privateer is attack and plunder, that of a
merchant-vessel is commerce & self-preservation."
CHAPTER XIV. POLITICAL PRIVILEGES AND THEIR PROTECTIONS....
...SECTION IV. — THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
The Constitution. — By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that "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."
[1] Kershaw v. Bailey, 1 Exch. 743; Bradley v. Heath, 12 Pick.
(Mass.) 163.
[2] Gray v. Pentland, 2 S. & R. (Penn.) 23; Howard v. Thompson 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 319.
[3] See Fairman v. Ives, 5 B. & Ald. 642.
[4] Vanderzee v. McGregor, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 545.
[5] State v. Burnham, 9:N. H. 34.
The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.[1]
The Right is General. — It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
Standing Army. — A further purpose of this amend-[1] 1 Tuck. Bl. Com., App. 300.
ment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them.
What Arms may be kept. — The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.[1]
- Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [1880], FOURTH EDITION EDITED BY JON ROLAND, (Constitution Society), 2002.
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed."
Natura dedit omnia omnibus.
(Nature hath given all things to all men).
"5. The names lex, and jus, that is to say, law and right,
are often confounded; and yet scarce are there any two words
of more contrary signification. For right is that liberty which
law leaveth us; and laws those restraints by which we agree
mutually to abridge one another's liberty. Law and right
therefore are no less different than restraint and liberty,
which are contrary; and whatsoever a man doth that liveth in
a commonwealth, jure, he doth it jure civili, jure naturae,
and jure divino. For whatsoever is against any of these laws,
cannot be said to be jure. For the civil law cannot make that
to be done jure, which is against the law divine, or of nature.
And therefore whatsoever any subject doth, if it be not contrary
to the civil law, and whatsoever a sovereign doth, if it be not
against the law of nature, he doth it jure divino, by divine
right. But to say, lege divina, by divine law, is another thing.
For the laws of God and nature allowing greater liberty than is
allowed by the law civil (for subordinate laws do still bind
more than the superior laws, the essence of law being not to
loose, but to bind): a man may be commanded that by a law civil,
which is not commanded by the law of nature, nor by the law
divine. So that of things done lege, that is to say, by command
of the law, there is some place for a distinction between lege
divina and lege civili. As when a man giveth an alms, or helpeth
him that is in need, he doth it not lege civili, but lege divina,
by the divine law, the precept whereof is charity. But of things
that are done jure, nothing can be said done jure divino, that is
not also jure civili, unless it be done by them that having
sovereign power, are not subject to the civil law."
- Thomas Hobbs, The Elements of Law Natural and Politic: Chap. 29
'Of the Nature and Kinds of Laws'; Para. 5.
"In like manner, those laws that go under the title of responsa prudentum,
that is to say, the opinions of lawyers, are not therefore laws, because
responsa prudentum, but because they are admitted by the sovereign. And from
this may be collected, that when there is a case of private contract between
the sovereign and the subject, a precedent against reason shall not prejudice
the cause of the sovereign; no precedent being made a law, but upon
supposition that the same was reasonable from the beginning."
- Thomas Hobbs, The Elements of Law Natural and Politic: Chap. 29
'Of the Nature and Kinds of Laws'; Para. 10.
Here in the United States, We The People ARE the Sovereign Authority;
"Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial
to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the People is
SUPERIOR to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its
statutes, stands in OPPOSITION to that of The People, DECLARED IN THE
CONSTITUTION, the judges ought to be governed by the LATTER rather than the
former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the FUNDAMENTAL
LAWS, rather than by those which are NOT fundamental."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.”
- [Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256]
**********
Gun 'Control':
Malum paenae, Malum culpae.
(Contrary to reason, and the law of nature).
Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris.
(Whatsoever therefore you would have men do
unto you, that do you unto them).
Also See:
“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”
"the overruling law of self preservation"
Right to Keep and Bear Arms -
2006 GunShowOnTheNet.com