Ronald Watkins

Ronald Watkins
Chris P. Farnung
POL SCI 120 0005
3 September 2014
Bank Bailouts:
The second Amendment seems to be one of the most controversial parts of the
Constitution of the United States. The amendment was written in 1789 by the first congress and
ratified by the states as part of the Bill of rights in 1791and states:
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. (Barton p.5)
Today this leaves us with some intriguing questions such as what is meant by state and
what exactly is a militia based on the context of this statement? Most people seem to be in
agreement that law enforcement officials, the military and the militia have the right to keep and
bear arms. With this being stated I will attempt to examine these questions by looking briefly at
some of the earliest primary sources including early legal commentaries, State Constitutions
and legislative acts. From there I intend to briefly explore the modern day opposition that is
present in the United States at this time.
The idea of original intent is very important to keep in mind when one attempts to grasp
the proper interpretation of documents that were written in the past due to the fact that the
writers have long since passed on. The importance of this aspect cannot be ignored because a
common error in constitutional interpretation is the failure to examine a document according to
its original meaning. (Barton p.9) If this is not taken into account then serious error can result
leading to misguided rulings about the subject matter later on. Noah Webster, the founder
responsible for Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, is quoted as saying Whenever words
Ronald Watkins

are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced. Mistakes may be
very injurious. (Barton p.10) With this idea in mind we will proceed with a brief overview of how
the founders of our nation appear to have viewed the Second Amendment.
It can be understood that the Second Amendment was meant to protect what the
framers of the constitution referred to as the first law of nature or the right of self-protection.
This right was considered an inalienable right meaning it was to be guaranteed to every citizen
on an individual basis. Apparently the founding fathers concurred that an inalienable right is one
that God has granted and no inferior power has the right to take it away. Therefore it became
the duty of the government to protect these rights from encroachment. (Barton p.12) One
founder, James Wilson definitely held this view to be true. One of only six founders to sign both
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; he taught his students that our
government documents did not create new rights but simply secured old rights. (Barton p.13) St.
George Tucker, one of the most distinguished legal scholars in early America, is worth
mentioning as well. In his annotated edition of Blackstones Commentaries he declared: The
right of self-defense is the first law of nature and Whenever the right of the people to keep and
bear arms is prohibitedLiberty is on the brink of destruction. (Barton p.17) Thomas Jefferson,
a man known for seeing government as a source of tyranny if left unchecked, said No citizen
shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands. (Barton p.26)
Early Legislative acts are another excellent source of documentation regarding the intent
of the Second Amendment. One aspect they help us understand is how people viewed the
concept of the militia. Apparently the militia was understood to be all men who were capable of
bearing arms (Lee p.169). Early on in Americas history we can see that every able bodied man
was to be armed and ready to defend their territory at short notice. For instance a Virginia law
from 1673 provided that a citizen deemed too poor to purchase their own firearm would have
Ronald Watkins

one purchased for him by the state. The citizen would then pay a reasonable price for the
firearm when able to do so at a future time (Barton p.31) understandably this is not something
that is taken lightly. Paul Finkelman in his excellent essay entitled A well-regulated militia: The
Second Amendment in Historical perspective argues that Second Amendment is in place in
case of the governments failure to maintain a proper defense for the nation. (Bogus p.117-147).
The United States Constitution mentions the militia in Article I Section 8. The references deal
mainly with the Congressional responsibility to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the
Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions and also To provide for organizing, arming
and disciplining the militia... (Bernstein p.45) One can easily gather from these statements,
combined with Amendment II, that the militia was to fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal
government from time to time. However it can be well argued that since all the other
amendments found in the Bill of Rights protect specific individual rights the Second Amendment
should be no exception.
State constitutions provide citizens of the individual states the same individual protections
afforded by their federal counterpart. In other words the idea that all men have certain
inalienable rights can be found in every state constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is
noted in these constitutions in plain fashion. It is interesting to note that North Carolinas state
constitution has an added clause that reads Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying
concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that
practice. (NC ConstitutionSec.30) It can be clearly seen by this clause that the right to keep and
bear arms can be regulated in such a way as to avoid doing away with the idea altogether.
It is time now to look at the Second Amendment through the lens of the modern age that we
live in. We must ask the question of what is the best way to regulate the second amendment in
such a way as to not infringe on what is perceived as an inalienable right. In his essay What
Ronald Watkins

does the Second Amendment mean today? Michael C. Dorf argues that one way to get the
Second Amendment considered seriously in a court of law is to argue that firearm possession
by the general populace is a threat to public safety. Yet he concedes that a court that previously
ruled in favor of the Second Amendment would be hesitant to back such a statement. (Bogus
p.281) he does however point out that courts have ruled against an individuals right to keep and
bear arms on a personal level. For instance there have been cases where a convicted felon is
stripped of such rights. This makes sense in light of the fact that convicted felons are not
allowed to hold certain types of jobs or participate in many areas that law abiding citizens
engage in regularly. In fact one would be hard pressed to find someone that did not agree with
limiting a felons right to keep and bear arms.
The main issue does not seem to be whether an individual should be able to keep and bear
arms. The main concern seems to be what type of firearm is sufficient for a citizens protection.
For example, is an assault rifle necessary for self-defense? The answer to that is the subject of
an entire research paper altogether. Some that disagree with ownership of such firearms
suggest that since the musket was the primary self-defense weapon when the right to keep and
bear arms was ratified then it stands to reason the musket should be what are allowed for self-
defense purposes today. This argument falls short when one applies the same logic to the first
amendment. In other words should the first amendment only apply to oral and printed messages
today since that was the primary way to express oneself then? Of course not.
Another aspect involved in the Second Amendment debate is the association of firearms with
gun violence. Craig R. Whitney tackles this subject is chapter six of his book Living with Guns.
His main point here is that there seems to be no correlation between strict gun control
ordinances and gun violence. For instance, Chicago continues to lead the nation in gun violence
Ronald Watkins

related deaths despite having some of the nations strictest gun ownership laws. (Whitney
p.155-189).
In summary, it can be surmised that the founding fathers had specific well intended purposes in
mind when they drew up the Second Amendment over two centuries ago. We can glean much
wisdom from these men when we study what they had to say about the subject matter. This is
done by referencing primary sources such as letters, journal writings and other materials they
themselves wrote.
We can also see that the earliest state charters and constitutions afforded to their citizenry the
same inalienable rights the federal government would provide on a national level.
The real issue that seems to drive gun control advocates and its opponents is not the all-out
banning of civilian access to firearms but the banning of certain types of firearms from public
use. While this seems like something that should be easy to agree on the facts speak otherwise.
After all the definition of self-defense for one man will not likely be the same for another. Finally
there appears to be no correlation between allowing legal gun ownership and gun violence. It
stands to reason that an armed law abiding citizen is not who the public needs to be wary of. An
armed criminal is another story altogether.








Ronald Watkins








WORKS CITED
Barton, David, The Second Amendment preserving the inalienable right of self-protection
2011
Bernstein, R.B. The Constitution of the United States with the Declaration of
independence and the Articles of Confederation Barnes & Noble books 2002
Bogus, Carl T. The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional
Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms. New York, 2001
Whitney, Craig R. Living with guns: A liberals case for the Second Amendment, New
York, 2012.

Bibliography
Gasparino, Charles. Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance between Barack Obama and Wall
Street. New York, 2010.
Johnson, Simon, and James Kwak. 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. New
York, 2010.
Muolo, Paul. $700 Billion Bailout: The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and What It Means to You, Your
Money, Your Mortgage, and Your Taxes. Hoboken, NJ, 2009.
Ronald Watkins

Prins, Nomi. It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals From Washington to Wall Street.
Hoboken, N.J, 2009.
Ritholtz, Barry, and Aaron Task. Bailout Nation: How Greed and Easy Money Corrupted Wall Street and Shook the
World Economy. Hoboken, N.J, 2009.
Woods, Thomas E. Meltdown: A Free-market Look At Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and
Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse. Washington, DC, 2009.
















Ronald Watkins


Ronald Watkins


Ronald Watkins