THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE SECOND CONGRESS SAY ABOUT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ...

THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: WHAT THE DEBATES AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND THE FIRST CONGRESS SAY ABOUT THE RIGHT TO BEAR

ARMS

By JEFFREY P. CAMPBELL Bachelor of Arts in History Oklahoma State University

Stillwater, Oklahoma 2009

Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the

Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS May, 2012

THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: WHAT THE DEBATES AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND THE FIRST CONGRESS SAY ABOUT THE RIGHT TO BEAR

ARMS Thesis Approved:

Dr. Richard C. Rohrs Thesis Adviser

Dr. James L. Huston Dr. Elizabeth A. Williams

Dr. Sheryl A. Tucker Dean of the Graduate College

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

Page

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1

II. ORIGINS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT......................................................21

III. THE MILITIA VERSUS THE STANDING ARMY ............................................36

IV. MADISON THROWS A "BATH TUB TO A WHALE" .....................................65

V. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................78

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................87

iii

CHAPTER I

Introduction "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

Perhaps the Constitution's greatest quality lies in its ability to mean different things to different people. Whether the framers intended the document to be ambiguous or not, the vague wording of the Constitution ensured it would remain relevant for centuries after its creation. Surely no framer envisioned the invention of the automobile? let alone that his document provided the proper legal mechanisms to ensure automobile safety, to construct a system of national highways for its use, or to regulate its emissions. Yet, the ability of the Constitution to mean different things to different people comes at great cost. Disagreements regarding the meaning of a passage, phrase, or general spirit of the Constitution have and continue to create political and social discord.

The current political controversy surrounding the gun culture in the United States involves the Second Amendment. Gun rights advocates largely ignore the clause before the comma. They simply emphasize the remainder of the sentence, that people ? and, in

1 U.S. Constitution, amendment 2.

1

their mind, private citizens ? have the right to bear arms. Supporters of gun control disagree. They argue that the first portion of the sentence is the purpose of the amendment; the framers sought to protect the collective right of the people to form a militia. There is no individual right to bear arms, they allege; so, the government can regulate and even prohibit gun ownership. The individual and collective rights interpretations of the Constitution divide the nation, resulting in numerous Supreme Court cases, political action committees, lobbies, and a host of scholarship concerning what the founding fathers intended.

Unfortunately for gun rights activists, historical evidence provides no basis for an individual right to firearms. A plain reading of the Second Amendment itself, along with an examination of the debates during the drafting of the Constitution and the amendment's ratification show little concern for private firearm rights. Instead, what routinely surfaces in arguments between Federalists and Anti-Federalists is a concern over standing armies, the role of the militia, and determining how the federal government should exercise military power. James Madison introduced the Second Amendment to placate various fears regarding the military, the balance of power between the federal and state governments, and the use of standing armies.

This paper contributes to the historical understanding of the Second Amendment in two ways. First, it examines the debates regarding the Constitution in the national and state conventions. While these debates do not directly address the current gun rights controversy, they do provide insight into how the founding fathers viewed the use of firearms and are critical to any understanding of the Second Amendment. In addition, this paper concludes that Anti-Federalists were not clamoring for an individual right to gun

2

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download