The Second Amendment
The Right to Bear Arms
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.
Second Amendment Trivia!
ORIGINAL Wording


A well-regulated militia,
composed of the body of
the people, being the best
security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep
and bear arms will not be
infringed.
BUT no person religiously
scrupulous shall be
compelled to bear arms.
“right of the people to keep and
bear arms”

But what was meant by
adding “well-regulated
militia” and “necessary to
the security of a free
state”?
– Does it mean that you can
only carry arms if you are
in the militia?
– Can guns only be used for
national defense, or does
that mean self-defense?
“right of the people to keep and
bear arms”


Is the militia in 2005
mean the same thing
as it did in 1787?
CENTRAL
ARGUMENT!
– Whether people have a
right to bear arms as
INDIVIDUALS, rather
than just as part of an
official militia.
Before the Second Amendment:
Gun Control in England

There was the right to
bear arms BUT
– “as allowed by law”
– NOT an absolute right.
» FOR GOOD REASON!
The Citizen-Soldier in America
BEFORE the Revolution


Belief the part-time
citizen-soldier would
represent the values of
his community.
Unlikely to become an
instrument of
oppression as a fulltime professional
soldier.
The Citizen-Soldier in America
BEFORE the Revolution

The citizen-soldier
brought his own gun
to the fight or
protection of his
community.
– APOLOGY to the
women in here. In
1776, they didn’t
consider women as
citizen soldiers!
But women were soldiers!

Nancy Hart in the
American Revolution.
– Guns certainly helped
her!
Bearing Arms and the
Constitution

What the Founders
meant when they
deleted the C.O.
(conscientious
objector) and the
militia wording is
STILL not clear.
Collective Rights v. Individual
Rights: One Point of View (POV)

Some think the 2nd
Amendment was designed
ONLY to protect the rights
of the states to have
militias.
– NOT the right of
individuals to bear arms for
their own self-defense.
– “well-regulated militia” and
“security of a free state”
prove their point.
» Restrictions on hunting
and self-defense.
Collective Rights v. Individual
Rights: Another POV

Individual rights were
included in the militia.
– Militia = the body of
the people.
– Militia then includes
EVERYONE in the
community.
– ALSO the Bill of
Rights was included to
protect INDIVIDUAL
rights, not the states!
Collective Rights v. Individual
Rights: Another POV (cont.)

Also the Second
Amendment says
“right of the
PEOPLE” – meant to
protect individual
rights?
The Second Amendment and The
Courts

Barron v. Baltimore
(1831)
– The Second
Amendment makes it
so the FEDERAL
government cannot
make laws limiting
guns.
» BUT!!!!! It doesn’t stop
the states from
regulating guns.
The Second Amendment and The
Courts

Presser v. Illinois
(1886)
– Continued on Barron.
– Illinois could have a
law saying ONLY the
state militia could drill
or parade with arms.
The Second Amendment and The
Courts




US v. Miller (1939)
National Firearms Act
of 1934 required
registration of sawedoff shotguns.
Mr. Miller said this
violated his right to
bear arms.
DOES IT?
The Second Amendment and The
Courts

Miller Ruling:
– Possessing a sawed-off
shotgun is NOT related
to the militia and not
protected by the
Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment and The
Courts

Because of the Miller
Ruling – every time
gun control laws go
through the Congress
and the President –
they have to SPECIFY
the weapons and prove
they don’t go with a
well armed militia.
The Second Amendment and The
Courts

No federal court has
EVER struck down
gun control legislation
as a violation of the
Second Amendment.
You Decide!



Quilici v. Morton
Grove
The town of Morton
Grove, Illinois passed
a law to ban
possession of
handguns in the home.
Persons with guns had
to turn them in to the
police.
You Decide




Guns for recreational
shooting had to be stored
in gun clubs.
Police, security guards,
armed forces exempted.
Mr. Quilici believes his
Second Amendment rights
are being violated.
DO YOU AGREE /
DISAGREE?
Morton Grove Decision

The Federal
Government can’t
make laws regulating
guns – but local
communities can!
The Future of Gun Control

Pro-Gun: National Rifle
Association
– If the 2nd Amendment is
infringed – no other
constitutional rights are
safe.
– Just because criminals use
guns does not mean that
law-abiding citizens should
be denied the right to bear
arms.
» Costs of democracy. We
have to live with hate
speech to have all speech.
The Future of Gun Control

Advocates for Gun
Control: (Brady Law)
– No right is absolute in
the Bill of Rights.
– Right to bear arms
must be weighed
against potential harm
it can cause society.
» Harm is more deadly
than speech.