While the right to bear arms and form a militia did not originate with the Bill of Rights, it is certainly heavily associated with the second amendment put forth in the document. When considering the Second Amendment, one must analyze the historic context from which it arose to understand why the drafters of the Constitution considered its inclusion necessary. The circumstances surrounding the American Revolution are deeply related to the Second Amendment as are pieces of legislation which regulate slave ownership. This essay will reveal the historic context of the Second Amendment by exploring the ways in which American grievances with the relationship between the British military and government led to the composition of the Second Amendment in addition to the conditions of gun regulation the Founders did support.
The Declaration of Independence is one of the United States’ most foundational governmental documents. Although it is perhaps more known for its insistence upon fair legislative representation, some of its listed grievances disclose the need for a regulated militia as outlined in the Bill of Rights:
“He has kept among us, in times of piece, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power” (Document 4).
This sentiment is corroborated in a message from the Military governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Gage, and Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith of the British Army. The correspondence mentions that military supplies are being sent to Concord with the intention of “raising and supporting a rebellion against his majesty” (Document 2). Gage is demanding Smith seize the supplies. Certainly, the two men are acting outside of the bounds of the dictates of the British military by conducting this raid in secret and perhaps were not held accountable by any sort of higher civil authority. Stationed thousands of miles away from the seat of power in Great Britain, it is not difficult to imagine the ways in which the British military may have been left to its own devices – as insinuated by the Declaration of Independence. Hence, one might easily understand the mindset of the Founders when they considered and approved the Second Amendment.
The phrase, “well-regulated militia” (Document 10) is an interesting one and one that merits exploration. According to the Constitution, a militia is necessary, “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions…” (Document 5). The Constitution goes on to say that such a militia would be under the authority of the United States and their training would be determined by Congress (ibid). Hence, the founders considered a unified militia allegiant to the authority of the United States necessary to ensure the nation’s security and preservation of legal systems.
Conversely, there were those who saw the necessity of arming citizens in order guarantee public servants perform their duties in service to the nation. James Madison expounded upon this in the 46th addition to the Federalist Papers:
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit” (Document 7).
An armed American citizenry, in concert with a regulated militia buffers both internal and external threats to a democratic government. This sentiment is echoed in Richard Henry Lee’s Additional Letters from a Federalist Farmer, in which he explains that a well-armed populace who are trained extensively from a young age are necessary in order to preserve liberty (Document 8).
Anti-Federalists who were opposed to the content of the Constitution, however, expressed doubt about these provisions. Representative Elbridge Gerry, for example, pondered aloud during a debate on the floor of the House of Representatives about how long it would take before this hypothetical militia became a full-blown standing army – similar to the one which represented Great Britain in the American revolution (Document 9). The point Gerry was trying to make is that, despite the best of intentions, rhetoric about the preservation of liberty can be used to justify the destruction of a militia – among other things – in order to carry out an imperialist agenda.
With these examples in mind, it is also useful to examine the scenarios which the Founders may have deemed stricter regulation acceptable and necessary. Slaves, for example, present an illustrative example of such regulations. As property under the law (as opposed to citizens), slaves were subjected to detailed regulatory laws. One passage from South Carolina’s Slave Code that dates from 1740 presents a few of these regulations: “it shall not be lawful for any slave, unless in the presence of some white person, to carry or make use of fire arms;” “no Negro or other slave shall have liberty to carry any gun…or other weapon…at any time between Saturday evening after sun-set, and Monday morning before sun-rise;” if “any person shall find any slave using or carrying fire arms…such person may lawfully seize and take away such fire arms” (Document 1). These incredibly restrictive regulations were in place in order to prevent slaves from rebelling and uprising. Further, the conflation of “Negros” with slaves enforced a legal racial hierarchy and maintained the suppression of people of color. Other types of regulations populated the legal codes of other states as well – South Carolina is certainly not unique in this regard. It was to the benefit of every state in America to retain a racial hierarchy for a variety of reasons. Part of the hierarchy was preventing slaves from obtaining arms.
As with other language in the United States’ foundational documents, there are multiple ways in which one might analyze the message of the Second Amendment. The amendment’s historical context provides an interesting perspective which heavily informs both supporters of the Second Amendment and its critics. Part of that analysis includes the examination of legal codes, contemporary discourse about the subject, and the practicalities of life in the Revolutionary era.
