Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 24
Pierce Butler to Weeden Butler

Dear Sir. New York October the 8th. 1787....

“...As yet, the System, (U.S. Constitution), We had the honor of submitting to the States, meets with general approbation. A few designing, Intrigueing, Men, of desparate Circumstances, may be opposed to; but the bulk of the People, I am of opinion, like it. The Change, in my judgement, was well timed. A Body so Constituted as Congress, are quite unequal to govern so Extensive a Country, as the thirteen States. All Ranks of Men saw the Necessity of a Change---;they wisely had recourse to reason, and not Arms, for the Accomplishment of it. In this Instance America has sett a laudable Example to Civilized Europe. It might be well for the United Provinces, and perhaps, France, to follow it; for I think the latter appears to be verging towards a Change. If Our publick Prints speak truth, the former is like to experience the miseries attendant on the very worst of Wars. The hour of their greatness, & perhaps, wealth, in my Judgement, is past; they will, probably, sooner, or later, be swallowed up by the great Empires. If I can hear of any person going to London, I will send You a Copy of the result of Our deliberations; it is not worth the expence of postage, or I woud now enclose it to You. We, in many instances, took the Constitution of Britain, when in its purity, for a model and surely We cou'd not have a better. We tried to avoid, what appeared to Us, the weak parts of Antient, as well as modern Republicks. How will We have succeeded, is left for You, and other Letterd Men to determine. It is some what singular, yet so the fact is, that I have never met with any Dutch Man, who understood the Constitution of his own Country. It is, certainly a very complex, unwieldly piece of business. I have read different Histories of it, with attention, and to this hour, I have but a very inadequate idea of it. Pray give me Your opinion, freely of the One I had some small hand in frameing; after You have read it. In passing judgement on it, You must call to mind,that We had Clashing Interests to reconcile---;some strong prejudices to encounter, for the same spirit that brought settlers to a certain Quarter of this Country, is still alive in it. View the System there, as resulting from a spirit of Accommodation to different Interests, and not the most perfect One that the Deputies cou'd devise for a Country better adapted to the reception of it, than America is at this day, or perhaps ever will be. It is a great Extent of Territory to be under One free Government; the measures and modes of thinking, of the Inhabitants, differing nearly as much, as indifferent Nations of Europe. If We can secure tranquility at Home, and respect from abroad, they will be great points gain'd.

“We have, as You will see, taken a portion of power from the Individual States, to form a General Government for the whole, to preserve the Union. The General Government, to Consist of two Branches of Legislature and an Executive, to be Vested in One person, for four Years, but Elligible again. The first Branch of the Legislature, to be Elected by the People, of the different States, agreeable to a ratio of Numbers & wealth; to serve for two Years. The Second to Consist of two Members from each state, to be appointed by the Legislatures of the States, to serve for six Years, One third to go out every two Years, but to be Eligible again, if their state thinks proper to appoint them. A Judiciary to be Supreme in all matters relating to the General Government, and Appellate in State Controversies. The powers of the General Government are so defined, as not to destroy the Sovereignty of the Individual States. These are the Outlines, if I was to be more minute, I shoud tire Your patience....”

That helps shine some light on the subject near and dear to all of us fans of our Second Amendment, now doesn't it? Where to start? Let's see now....

How about that “ recourse to reason, and not Arms” sentence? Which leads one to believe that there was indeed an option left open to settle disputes with arms, correct? That being the case, it would necessarily follow to reason that the means to go down that avenue of “recourse” must have been available as well. This naturally leads us to the next logical point. Which is “the Constitution of Britain, when in its purity”.

One of the favorite parts of the British Constitution, for many Americans anyways, was the Bill of Rights of 1689. In which, there was a provision “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”. One of the things that Americans did NOT like about the provision however. Was that it was left open to the arbitrary decisions of politicians and courts to define “conditions” and “allow[ances] by law”. In fact, British arbitrary acts and decisions. Including confiscation of arms from the colonists in Boston. Are direct factors in what lead to the Revolutionary War. And, to make matters even worse, the British Constitution could be changed almost at will. By either Parlimentary decision or royal preogative. It was, by no means, a FIXED rule of FUNDAMENTAL laws.

To get a clear understanding of the distinct difference intended between the British model of our Right. Which the colonists had long held as being an inherent natural right that was “afforded us by God and Nature”. Let us take a look at what a very knowledgeable person on the subject had stated;

"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). (Mr. Tucker was present at many of the debates on the Constitution and Bill of Rights).

See the difference? There is a BIG one, isn't there? It is very clear that the framers of our present Constitution. Were more than aware of the results of government attempts to disarm the people;

“...He particularly and pathetically intreated Congs. to consider that it was in agitation and probably would be determined by the Legis. of Massts. not only to bring to due punishment the more active & leading offenders, but to disarm & disfranchise for a limited time the great body of them; that for the policy of this measure he would not undertake to vouch, being sensible that there were great & illustrious examples agst. it, that His confidence however in the prudence of that Govt. would not permit him to call their determinations into question; that what the effect of these rigors might be it was impossible to foresee. He dwelt much on the sympathy which they probably would excite in behalf of the stigmatized party....”

“...Mr Pinckney in reply contended that if the measures pursuing by Massts. were such as had been stated, he did not think the U. S. bound to give them countenance. He thought them impolitic and not to be reconciled with the genius of free Govts. and if fresh commotions should spring from them, that the State of Massts. alone should be at the charge, and abide by the consequences of their own misconduct....”

- Journals of the Continental Congress, Feb. 19, 1787.

It is of interest to note that Mr. Pinckney played a major role in forming our new Constitution. This was one of the suggestions he had made;

"All acts made by the legislature of the United States, pursuant to this constitution, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and all judges shall be bound to consider them as such in their decisions.”

"Art. XII. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”

Judging by all of the above information, as well as a mountain of other additional facts. It can be held as certain that “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed” means exactly what was written. And that it is most assurdedly one of the “inalienable rights” held by ALL free American citizens.