Fleming Second Amendment and the American Gun

Evolution and Development of a Right Under Siege
1. Auflage 2016
ISBN: 978-1-4835-7514-8
Verlag: BookBaby
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 200 Seiten

'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.' (The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the remaining nine amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.) What does the language mean? Where did it come from? How should it be interpreted? Does it create a right of average citizens to own and possess firearms? Can a government, intent upon subjugating the people, strip the right away? What is the 'militia'? Does it still exist? Must we be members of such a militia in order to protect our ability to arm ourselves for personal protection? How does the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution relate to American gun rights? The Second Amendment and the American Gun - A Right Under Siege' is a book written by a lawyer, but written specifically for the average American citizen, not schooled in the law, or a Constitutional scholar. It explains the history of the Second Amendment and its surprising origin. It introduces the reader to people he or she has likely never heard of who figure so prominently in the amendments evolution and history, as well as the history of this country. It summarizes the case law that has evolved around the Second Amendment, including a very early opinion issued by the Unites States Supreme Court that holds that the Second Amendment does not create the right of average law-abiding citizens to own and posses firearms, but merely protects a pre-existing right to do so. Whether you value the Second Amendment, or believe that it is no longer necessary in our modern world, you need to read this book. The Founders of our nation reach out to you with their words, explaining their thoughts, their beliefs and their reasons for creating the Amendment in the first place. At this time in our nation's history, an understanding of the history and evolution of this Amendment is needed as never before.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Fleming, Jim

Leseproben

CHAPTER 2: The Militia Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared then that we shall turn to our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are a birthright of an American. – Tench Coxe, article in the Pennsylvania Gazette newspaper (February 20, 1788). Image found at the Library of Congress – Published by Currier & Ives, c1876 With all these references to the militia, let’s back up a little and ask, “What exactly is the militia, who is in the militia, and where do we find it?” I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. George Mason described it in this fashion in his address to the Virginia Constitutional Ratifying Convention on June 4, 1788. Mason is remembered as the father of the Bill of Rights. Tenche Coxe described it in more detail in the Pennsylvania Gazette on February 20, 1788: Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. The colonial militia arose out of a need to provide an armed force to defend against hostile tribes and criminals at a time when the British military maintained only small numbers of troops in the colonies. Drawing upon their knowledge and understanding of the militia system in England, colonists developed their own local defensive forces by passing laws requiring every able-bodied male citizen to participate, and to provide his own arms. Control of the militia was a matter of only local concern and towns had autonomous control over local militia groups. Things remained the same until just prior to the Revolutionary War. During the period 1774 to 1775, the British attempted to disarm the American people. Parliament, angered by the Boston Tea Party in December, 1773, passed laws known as the Coercive Acts. The Acts included: 1.The Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston until damages from the Boston Tea Party were paid. 2.The Massachusetts Government Act, which restricted Massachusetts; democratic Town meetings and turned the Governor’s council into an appointed body. 3.The Administration of Justice Act, which made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in Massachusetts. 4.The Quartering Act, which required colonists to house and quarter British troops on demand, including in their private homes as a last resort. These Acts angered the colonists, but it was the fear that the British intended to deploy an army to enforce these Acts that stimulated the colonists to prepare for armed resistance. On June 4th, 1774, the town of Little Hanover, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.”36 A South Carolina newspaper urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was illegitimate. Colonists started forming private militias that operated independently of control by the royal governors. During the war, colonial militias comprised the bulk of the armies that fought for independence. The war left many Americans with a strong distrust of standing armies and confidence in the capabilities of their militia organizations. The new country reduced the standing army significantly, believing that the militias were fully capable of providing for the nation's defense. The Articles of Confederation required each state to maintain a well-armed militia. We have also seen the impact of Shays’ Rebellion on the attitudes of those who attended the Constitutional Convention. During the Constitutional Convention, the delegates were divided into two major groups. The Federalists, who wanted to exercise federal control of the militia, and the Anti-Federalists who wanted to retain substantial power in the state governments and were fearful of the idea of federal control over their state militias. For example, exchanges such as these, transcribed by James Madison during the debates, are a fascinating window into the minds of the Founders during those critical weeks that the Constitution was debated by the delegates. The exchange was between Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, an anti-Federalist, and John Langdon of New Hampshire, a Federalist, who was sympathetic to the idea of building a strong central government: Mr. Gerry: “This power in the United States, as explained, is making the States drill-sergeants. He had as lief (English term of the day meaning “well”) let the citizens of Massachusetts be disarmed, as to take the command from the States, and subject them to the General Legislature. It would be regarded as a system of despotism.” Mr. Langdon said he could not understand the jealousy expressed by some gentlemen. The General and State Governments were not enemies to each other, but different institutions for the good of the people of America. As one of the people, he could say, The National Government is mine, the State Government is mine. In transferring power from one to the other, I only take out of my left hand what it cannot so well use, and put it into my right hand where it can be better used. Mr. Gerry thought it was rather taking out of the right hand and putting it into the left. Will any man say that liberty will be as safe in the hands of eighty or a hundred men taken from the whole continent, as in the hands of two or three hundred taken from a single State?37 Through debate came eventual compromise. This involved a division of federal and state control over the militia. The militia clauses in Article I of the Constitution grant the federal government considerable authority over the militia, but at the same time, leave appointment of militia officers to the states. This was done to resolve concerns the Anti-Federalists had that the Constitution would leave the state governments powerless against a federal army. Article One, Section Eight, Clause 16 of the Constitution provides for the extent of Congressional authority over the militia: The Congress shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress… The anti-federalists were not happy with the eventual outcome. Maryland Convention delegate, Luther Martin38 wrote, in 1788: As it now stands, the Congress will have the power, if they please, to march the whole militia of Maryland to the remotest part of the union, and keep them in service as long as they think proper, without being in any respect dependent upon the government of Maryland for this unlimited exercise of power over its citizens.39 Armed with authority over the militia, Congress passed a pair of federal statutes known as the Militia Acts of 1792. The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the president to call out the state militias, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe."40 The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, dealt with the organization of the state militias. It provided that every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between 18 and 45 was compelled to enlist in a local militia company. was later expanded to include all males, regardless of race, between 18 and 54. The law also provided that each man was to provide his own firearms. Federal preemption of state-militia legislation commenced very early in the history of the Republic. In 1820, the Supreme Court stated that the federal government's power over the militia "may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress."41 However, the Militia Acts did not require the federal government to fund the operation of the state militias. Over time the various states allowed their militia to deteriorate. In many cases, by the late 1870s, the militias became no more than social clubs that did little other than participate in an annual parade. In 1903, Congress made an effort to revitalize the state militias. It passed the "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903"42, referred to as the “Dick Act” named after Ohio Congressman Charles Dick.43 This Act saw the beginning of efforts to federalize the militia. The Dick Act split the militia into two branches:...