A People Armed and Free
The Truth About the Second Amendment
by
Book Cover & Preview Text
Courts quite logically have decided that when trying
to interpret a statute or a portion of the Constitution, the first thing they
do is look at the words themselves.
Sometimes, the provision is clear-cut and the problem can be solved
there.[1]
However, the cause of the problem in this case is
those darn pesky words. Why couldn’t
the Founding Fathers be more explicit and clear in what they meant when they
drafted the Second Amendment? While I
believe that the Founding Fathers had a clear intent in mind when they drafted
the Second Amendment (I do not believe that they were trying to confuse people
or hide their real purpose or conduct some fraud on the people), the use of two
clauses (one dealing with militias, the other with a right of the people),
which, at first glance, in today’s political environment seem to almost be
mutually exclusive, makes it harder to determine just what this original intent
was.
It is almost like trying to read the King James
Version of the Bible, especially some of the Old Testament prophets such as
Daniel or Isaiah. Why couldn’t those
prophets just write in plain English?
Probably because they did not speak English, nor did anyone else on the
face of the Earth at the time, but even when translated into English, it is still
hard to understand. That is partially
because the English used when the King James Version was written differs from
our English today. While the English
used in the 1780-90’s is not as different, it is still somewhat different.
Let’s look again at the Second Amendment:
“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.” This can
be divided into two clauses: 1. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State and 2. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
The issue is one of two different interpretations of
the same words. The gun control
advocates interpret the first clause as controlling over the second. In other words, The Founding Fathers
expressed the only purpose for keeping and bearing arms in the first clause,
therefore the whole amendment means that the States have a right to have
militias, and only the states’ militias have the right to keep and bear
arms. While this may be jumping ahead
of myself, they consider the National Guard to be the militia, therefore, the
Second Amendment only gives a right to keep and bear arms to the National
Guard.
The gun rights advocates take a different approach. Some ignore the first clause
altogether. Those who do not ignore it,
read it to mean just a purpose stated (not the only purpose), and
that the second clause controls, giving the right to the people, that is to
say, to individuals.
So, what do we do?
How do we get started? Who is
right as to what the words of the Second Amendment say? I will start from the inside out. I will start with the rights clause, looking
at the nouns and defining them. Then I
will look at the verbs in that same clause and define them. I will then put that clause together to
determine the meaning of the clause.
Then I will go to the militia clause and do the same thing, only
including the adjectives and adverbs contained therein in the definitions. I will then put the two clauses together to
determine the meaning of the Amendment as a whole.
The “Right”
The first place to start looking for definitions of
words, as I tell my children, is to go look it up in the dictionary. And believe it or not, often times that is
exactly what the courts do too. In this
case, I happened to pick up the dictionary on my desk and looked up the word
“right”[2]. While “right” has many definitions, as an
adjective, noun, adverb, and verb, both transitive and intransitive, only two
seem to even come close to any possible use in the Second Amendment. They are as a noun, definitions 5
(“Something that is due to a person by law, tradition, or nature”), and 6 (“A
just or legal claim or title”)[3]. Of the two, I think definition 5 has more
application, because while 6 could apply to a “claim” to keep and bear arms, it
more likely refers to a “claim” to property (for example: He has a right to the house because he owns
it). Notice that in definition 5, a
right is something that is due to a person, not a government.
Formats Book Details In 1999, 39% of American households had guns. Approximately 28 million households. In 2001, the Fifth Circuit held that the
Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. But in 2002, the Ninth Circuit ruled contrary,
that there is no individual right; there is only a collective right of the
states to arm the National Guard. Who
is right? What does the Second
Amendment do? 28 million households
want to know! A People Armed and Free: The Truth About the Second Amendment, using plain, common
language, easy to understand, goes through six factors that the courts consider
in determining the meaning of constitutional provisions: The text itself, the history of the
Amendment, the structure of the government, previous court decisions, public
policy, and the ethos of the American people.
The applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment to restrict the states’
efforts to regulate gun ownership, the current status of federal gun regulation
and current proposals for more regulations and their possible constitutionality
are also discussed. Unlike most books,
this book looks at all arguments, from all sides, and makes a decision, as an
appellate judge would do after reviewing briefs and hearing arguments, only
cutting through the legalese. Jack Reynolds has been a practicing attorney in
Houston, Texas since November 1983. He
is licensed in both Texas and Utah, and practices before both state and federal
courts. He is also licensed before the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. He is
Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal
Specialization. He graduated cum
laude from the University of Houston School of Law in 1983, where he served
as a research editor on the Law Review.
He retired as a lieutenant colonel infantry officer in the Marine Corps
Reserve. Active in his church and community, he has a wife
and three children at home, whose freedoms and physically security he is
determined to protect.
About the Book
About the Author
