A few months ago, I ran across a legal brief written in 1971 by
John Levin. At the time of its writing, Levin was an Assistant Professor
at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. In the wake of the terrorist attack
in San Bernadino, I thought it be interesting to provide excerpts from Levin's
brief:
"The earliest colonial statutes requiring that the colonists
arm themselves were Virginia statutes of 1623 stating that ‘no man go or send
abroad without a sufficient party will [sic] armed,’ and that ‘men go not to
worke in the ground without their arms (and a centinell upon them)."
“During the revolutionary
period the issue of arms and the bearing of arms developed along two distinct
lines. One line of development related to the balance of military power between
the people and their respective governments. The people feared that if the
state or federal government became too powerful, that government would abridge
the liberties of the people and impose its will by force. The other line of
development related to the balance of military power between the governmental
bodies of the union. The state governments feared that if they entrusted too
much power in the hands of the central government, that government would
destroy the political and military independence of the states.”
“The state constitutions framed
during the War for Independence reflected the fears of a standing army. The
framers felt that such an army would create an overbearing force at the
disposal of the state governments. All the states included provisions regarding
standing armies and militia in their bills of rights. Several had provisions
similar to Virginia's:
That a well-regulated
militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper,
natural, and safe defense of a Free State; that standing armies, in time of
peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the
military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil
power.”
“When
the draftsmen of the majority of the state bills of rights wrote of replacing
the standing army with a popular militia, they believed it would remove a
source of arbitrary military power from the hands of the state governments and
replace it with a military less likely to oppress the people. They attempted to
structure the political and military balance in the new states by making the
governments less powerful and the citizens more powerful.”
“The provisions in the state
constitutions granting a ‘right to bear arms’ were not intended to permit a
public allowance of the right of revolution. In the first place, the phrase ‘to
bear arms’ only meant serving in an organized armed force. In the
second place, the right of revolution, or at least a statement of the principle
of that right, was specifically contained in other sections of most state
constitutions. In the third place, the guaranty of the ‘right to bear arms’ or
similar statements of preference for the militia was contained in that section
of the constitutions directly concerned with controlling the military power of
the state and not in the section recognizing the right of revolution.”
“The fundamental problem
facing the convention was not to support and nourish a revolutionary situation,
but to create a viable federal government out of the jealous and independent
states. One of the major aspects of this problem was the creation of a national
army. The delegates to the convention feared that if the new federal government
could obtain sufficient military power, it could then impose its will on the
states and on the people.”
“James Madison replied: ‘As the
greatest danger is that of disunion of the States it is necessary to guard
against it by sufficient powers to the Common Government and as the greatest
danger to the liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them
by an effectual provision for a good Militia.’ A compromise was reached whereby
the federal government would maintain a standing army plus have the authority
to regulate and call out the militia, and the states would have authority over
the militia except when it was called into federal service. The results of the
compromise appear in article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution…”
“When such a bill of rights was
debated in the First Congress, the militia amendment was first reported out of
committee of the House of Representatives reading:
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 person
religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
“Several of the representatives
objected to the provision excusing those people ‘religiously scrupulous’ from
bearing arms.”
“In any event the religious
exemption from the militia was dropped and the amendment in its final form
read: 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.
“From the debates it seems clear
that the intent of Congress in passing the second amendment was to prevent the
federal government from destroying the state militia. Pinckney would keep a
defense force uniform and at the disposal of the federal government. Martin was
assured that the federal government would not emasculate the states and leave
them at the mercy of federal troops. The ‘right to bear arms’ was a corporate
right used to insure that a desired balance between liberty and authority
within the union would be maintained.
“Attempts were made to include a
personal right to have arms in the Bill of Rights. Sam Adams introduced a bill
in the Massachusetts legislature that the state support an amendment holding
that the ‘Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to ... prevent
the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their
own arms.’ New Hampshire supported a provision that ‘Congress shall never
disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.’ Though
these provisions were never adopted, they indicate that there has never been
any absolute "American" philosophy on the right to bear arms. This
confusion arises from America's situation of being a frontier nation created
out of revolution and espousing a belief in revolution but which also desires
and needs to create an orderly social and political structure.”
“While most courts have not
attempted to counter the assertion of the right of revolution, an earlier
Arkansas court had stated in State v. Buzzard
that such a right was unnecessary under a free, republican government
which could be changed at the will of the people.”
“The desire to maintain such a
balance has had a long history dating from feudal times, through the English
revolution to the present day. Such thinking, however, is rare in judicial opinions.
Similarly rare is the unitary concept of society and government expressed by
the Kansas court in City of Salina v. Blakesly.
“The provision ...that 'the
people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security' refers to
the people as a collective body. It was the safety and security of society that
was being considered when this provision was put into our Constitution .... The
provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the
State Militia, or some other military organization provided for by the law.
“Such thinking indicates belief
that there is no need to provide for a military balance within the political
and social structure when that structure is responsive to the people.
“Most state courts have never
spoken of the right to bear arms in the sophisticated terms of political
balance, but rather treated the right as synonymous with the right of
self-defense.”
“These debates over the issue of
the right of self-defense, though of primary interest today, have little
relation to the intent of the draftsmen of the Bill of Rights. The right of
self-defense has had a long history; but its history was parallel to, not
connected with, the right to bear arms.”
“Cases concerning the second
amendment arose in the federal courts only after the Civil War. The first of
such cases, U.S. v. Cruickshank, implied
that there was a personal right to bear arms upon which Congress could
not infringe.”
“The issue of regulating the
collective right arose in United States v. Miller in which the Supreme
Court held that as long as the weapon regulated did not have a direct
relationship to the arms used in maintaining a well-regulated militia, they
could be controlled…”
“The federal courts have
interpreted the right to bear arms contained in the second amendment very
narrowly. The right exists only to the extent that the arms are required for a
well-regulated militia. Since Presser [v. Illinois], however, the second
amendment has been interpreted as a source of federal power and not as a
protection of state power. The need for the old military balance between state
and national governments had disappeared, and the federal courts no longer
recognized its existence.”
“Regardless of the long history
of violence and assassination in the United States, the right to bear arms has
remained closely and jealously guarded. This right appears to provide the
individual with the means of protecting himself against other individuals and
of protecting himself against his government. The maintenance of a military
balance within the political structure was the genesis of this right, and the
desire to continue such a balance will promote its continuation. The right to
bear arms supports man in his fear of being defenseless in the face of personal
danger or oppression.”
_________________________________________________________________________________
There have been a myriad of
court decisions since 1971. How have
they changed the legal interpretation of the right to bear arms? If this is an issue
of interest to you, I am sure you have a strong opinion. If you fall into that category, I suggest you
click through to read this entire piece. My selected excerpts may reflect my
confirmation bias.
WHO WILL LEAD?
