On the Second Amendment

lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

Home

Email Me

Other Essays

On the Second Amendment

Interpretations of the second amendment to the Constitution abound, though in modern times those of the National Rifle Association and its affiliates seem to be winning approval in the courts and in state legislatures. As a result, weapons of all kinds, concealed and unconcealed, have proliferated and make their appearance regularly in the news. The latest round of sniper shootings is a case in point.

Indeed, the right of the people to bear arms has been so literally translated into action that concealed weaponry seems to be de rigueur, and any attempt to stop the flow of arms into the hands of the people is deemed unpatriotic and anathema to their constitutional rights. Even such sacrosanct places as churches, schools and playgrounds are no longer out of gun sight, as gun lobbies push to the limit their alleged right to own and transport guns wherever they please.

Just this year, for instance, the state of Virginia made it illegal for any locality to ban the transport of concealed weapons. Hence rifles may be found in vehicles parked on school property, while hunters and other gun toters have untrammeled access to playgrounds, parks and recreation centers.

Yet is this what the founding fathers, and specifically George Mason, had in mind when they formulated the second amendment? Probably not.

According to the 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.”

What we frequently forget when dealing with the amendment is that George Mason and most of the other founding fathers were astute Latin students, and when they wrote, they were highly influenced by and strictly adhered to Latin, and usually Ciceronian, sentence structure.

Hence, anyone who knows Latin would recognize that the first clause of the amendment is what is known grammatically as an ablative absolute. That is, both the noun (“Militia”) and the verb (“being necessary”) in its participial form would be in what’s called the ablative case in Latin. And the force of this construction is to indicate the CAUSAL CIRCUMSTANCES under which the main clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”) becomes operative. Hence the reason that the people have the right to bear arms is because, and only because, we need a well-regulated militia.

The question then arises as to what constitutes a well-regulated militia. Did the founding fathers really mean that a well-regulated militia included everyone in the country? Or in a state? Probably not.

In fact, the answer as to what, in their minds, constituted a militia might well be found in the fifth amendment to the Constitution.

This amendment states that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases ARISING IN LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, OR IN THE MILITIA, when in actual service in time of war or public danger…”

Obviously the militia is made up of a well-defined group of people, as are land or naval forces, and this group is specifically tied to activities in times of war or public danger. Indeed, if everyone in the country were considered part of a militia, the fifth amendment wouldn’t apply to anyone, since these days any time could be considered a time of “public danger.” But that’s patently ridiculous.

In fact, the basis of the second amendment to the federal constitution is found in the earlier constitution of the state of Virginia, which was also formulated by George Mason. Here too we find mention of the need of a well regulated militia taken from the body of the people and “trained to arms” as being the “proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.” And on this basis alone the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is interesting to note too that the Virginia constitution also stipulates 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 civil power.

It is with good reason, then, that the founding fathers stipulated in their Latinesque manner that there are definite circumstances under which the people are given the right to bear arms. And these circumstances involve the necessity for a homeland militia which would deal with local insurrections or other disturbances beyond the purview of federal land and naval forces.

The idea, then, that anyone, anywhere, has the constitutional right to buy and transport weapons is blatantly false. The language of the amendment simply does not support such a contention. Obviously the manpower for the militias mentioned in the Constitution was drawn from the people, and it is they, as part of a militia and thus “trained to arms,” who have the right to bear arms.

If the founding fathers indeed meant that everyone had the right to bear arms, they would not have been so careful to include the circumstantial clause in the amendment. That is, they would not have qualified the main clause as they did. But they did qualify it. They did set the circumstances under which the people have the right to bear arms.

How unfortunate it is that we today are so ignorant of linguistic precision or that so few of us understand Latin. If we did, perhaps our understanding of the amendment would take an entirely different turn and lead us back to what the framers originally intended.

October 24, 2002