Second Amendment and the Federalist Papers

[edhopper]

From a conversation with a friend about gun rights, it occurred to me to look at what the founders actually were saying.
So what were the Founders debating as they wrote the 2nd Amendment. An always good source is to look at the Federalist Papers, specifically what Hamilton and Madison were discussing.
Turns out the issue was not self defense (in that day an age, no one would think people shouldn't have guns, it was a normal part of their lives,especially in rural areas).
What they were talking about is the countries defense, without a large standing army, which might have been too costly for the young country, they looked to State militias. There was debate bout whether these groups could be trusted if they were under State leadership. So they talked about who should organize and control these groups. Would the Federal government have ultimate authority in time of war? Who was responsible for the training? The idea was these "well regulated militias" were the countries defense. The "security of a free State" was not the fever dream of the Right Wing taking down a "Tyrant" like Obama or Biden. It was literally the security of the country against a foreign foe or an internal insurrection.
Those who look for "original intent" ignore this essential part of the Amendment.
And truthfully trying to decide what any of the Founders would think about guns in our times, which is so far removed from the concerns of their times, is foolish IMHO.
The reality is the 2nd Amendment is a poorly worded section about militias, NOT private gun ownership.

Federalist Paper #29; Hamilton
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

[Jerry2144]

1. The biggest reason for it was to protect against a slave uprising

Like happened in Haiti in 1791. All slave owners were killed. They wanted to be sure that neighbors were armed and could help put one down.

This is another relic of slavery still in our constitution like the Senate and electoral college

[sarisataka]

2. They wrote the Amendment because of a slave uprising

that occurred two years after the drafting of the BoR... They were very prescient.

[Jerry2144]

3. No. They did it on fear of one happening

There were minor ones occurring wherever slaves were held. Those were quickly squashed through violence. They wanted to ensure it could be stopped if it happens again


No matter what, it’s poorly written and misinterpreted and obsolete.

[cachukis]

4. Read a law review article many years ago about

the Virginia House of Burgesses where, Patrick Henry, Randolph and Madison, among others, reflected on the inadequacy of the Articles of Federation allowing for states to rescue other states in a military time of crisis. The discussion led to the reluctance of Maryland, say, to help Virginia in putting down a slave rebellion. There were hundreds of slave revolts that worried southern states.
Ultimately, the Virginians were strongly in favor of the second ammendment as it sponsored a militia mentality to put down slave insurrections.
There was a well managed arsenal in Williamsburg, as gun maintenance was spotty due to few gunsmiths and little oil to keep barrels from rust. Some arsenals wrapped barrels in bacon.
Wish I could remember the author, but the name Boggs, comes to mind.
This reading was at least some 15 to 20 years ago and my recollection might be off, but I was struck by the slave uprising fear as being very influential.

[Amishman]

5. It's hard to say context as other state constitutions at the same time worded it as an individual right

PA 's for example expressly frames it as both purposes.

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

[edhopper]

7. True

But the US supercedes State constitutions.
And my point is about what they wrote the 2nd for. And we can only go by what they wrote.

[Amishman]

9. but if we're talking context for an originalist interpretation, it's an equally valid consideration

An originalist evaluation of the context of the second would review the federalist papers, contemporary state constitutions, state and local laws, etc etc. Just like the radical new standard set by Thomas in the Bruen decision.

The wording of the second is no real help. A plain reading of it suggests its referring to militia use. Literal grammatical diagramming says that the sentence structure links the stated right to the people, and make it an individual right.

But is this really the debate we want to have at all? This is Originalism, and Originalism is a RW principle at it's heart.

[edhopper]

11. I think, to your point

I don't know if anyone there thought people can't own arms. There didn't seem to be any discussion in the Papers about gun ownership. It was about organizing them into a Militia.
So these Originalist might want to look at some State Constitutions, but they ignore what the Founders actually said. T

[albert992]

6. 2nd Amendment

I hadn’t realized the 2nd Amendment was all about organized militias and not just personal self-defense. Makes sense that back then they were more worried about keeping a small country safe without a big army.

[jmowreader]

8. The Bill of Rights was an effort to correct the "sins of our fathers"

Everything in it was based on keeping some shit the British Crown was pulling on its citizens from happening here.

Take the First Amendment: In England there was one official church, the Church of England, that you basically had to be a member of. If you wanted to be a member of a different church, or you decided the Bible was written by an unhinged lunatic and wanted no part of it, too bad for you. If you wrote or said something that pissed off the King they'd haul you off to the Tower of London and chop off your head with an axe. The First Amendment's purpose was to put an end to all that.

All the criminal justice stuff is in there because the Brits had no problem with pulling you off the street for no reason, locking you up and forgetting about you until your corpse was growing mold.

So, we get to the Second. Thomas Jefferson absolutely hated standing armies and refused to have one in the new nation. Militias would, in his view, provide all the security the United States would ever need. As it turned out that was absolutely wrong - even in the Revolution, which enabled this land to be its own independent country, George Washington realized the militias were getting their asses kicked by Britain's professional army and formed one of his own. Because armies need guns and he didn't want an actual army, the Second Amendment was written to guarantee militias would be able to have guns.

The Second Amendment extremists claim that the amendments in the Bill of Rights were put in there in their order of importance and that the right to own guns is the most important one. If this is the case, why is the one that says I can't be locked up for calling Trump a useless communist piece of shit before the one that says you can own guns, the one that says the Army can't turn your house into a barracks unless you tell them they can is right after the one about guns, the one that says they can't punish you for jaywalking by boiling you in oil (which, while a bit excessive, would certainly stop you from doing it again) six amendments after the one about guns, and the one that says states can write their own laws all the way at the end? I don't know about you, but it seems to me the "no boiling in oil" one is a little more important than the "you can own all the guns you want" one.

[AntiFascist]

10. Agreed, but you're leaving out one very important point...

and this is fairly well spelled out in Federalist Paper No. 46 and other discussions by the framers:

When the nation was first founded, people were not always trusting of a Federal President presiding over the nation and commanding its standing military. There was concern that a president might misuse his power and act like a monarch, threatening the freedoms of its citizens. Sound familiar?

The thinking was that "well regulated" militias, commanded by individual States, could stand up to Federal forces and, by sheer numbers, defend the freedoms of its citizens. The first two phrases of the 2nd Amendment spell this out: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This is not just for the purpose of defending against foreign invasion or internal insurrection. I believe the phrasing is specifically spelled out this way to defend against a rogue president with monarchical tendencies, when the Constitutional checks and balances are no longer working the way they should.