This is the most relevant portion of my most recent statement of the law concerning Militia -- and therefore of the Second Amendment. Read it carefully as concerns the anti-Constitutionalism fed these gun-/nuts by the gun industry via its propaganda arm NRA:
R. B----- says:
"All of the Bill of Rights refer to individual rights. Raving lunatics should read the Federalist Papers for further insight."
Concerning the "Federalist Papers": the CORRECT title of the book to
which refer[red] is "The Federalist". As well, "The Federalist," not
having been enacted by a legislature, is both NOT LAW and IRRELEVANT
for several reasons. First, they were written by Hamilton, Madison, and
Jay -- only one of whom would later be a member of the first Congress,
which WROTE the Bill of Rights, under the newly-ratified Constitution.
Second, the authors ADMITTED that their purpose was to SELL the
CONSTITUTION -- which OBVIOUSLY means they were not OBJECTIVE: they
were BIASED in favor OF ratification. Third, and most relevant, as the
Constitution was framed, and then ratified, WITHOUT a "Bill of Rights,"
the only mentions of "Bill of Rights" in "The Federalist" are
REJECTIONS of the "NEED" for one.
Fourth, "The Federalist" was written by THREE delegates to the
Constitutional Convention -- out of over FIFTY delegates; which
delegates agreed on very little. THREE is an INCONSEQUENTIAL MINORITY
of OVER FIFTY delegates. And those three were balanced by THREE
delegates on the OPPOSITE end of the political spectrum who OPPOSED
ratification of the Constitution because it DIDN'T have a "Bill of
Rights". One of those was Elbridge Gerry, about whom more below.
Fifth, with ratification of the Constitution completed, Federalist promotion of that outcome ENDED.
Note the following chronology:
1. Several states that ratified the Constitution, beginning with
Massachuetts-Bay, included PROPOSED amendments with their Notices of
2. Completion of ratification of the Constitution occurred on June 21, 1788.
3. SUBSEQUENTLY, Congress was established/organized under the newly-ratified Constitution.
4. Congress first "achieved a quorum on 6 April ". "Creating
the Bill of Rights" (Johns Hopkins, 1991), Veit, et al., at xiv.
5. Madison, the ONLY author of "The Federalist" to be a member of
Congress, codified the several states' PROPOSED amendments into a
RESOLUTION which he submitted to Congress for DEBATE on May 4, 1789.
Id., at 1.
6. On May 25, 1789, Madison himself moved to POSTPONE consideration
of the proposed amendments until June 8, 1789, which was agreed to by
the Congress. Id., at 5.
7. Debate of the proposed amendments did not begin until August 13,
1789. Id. at 7. That's how "worried" the Founders/Framers in Congress
were about there NOT being a Bill of Rights: they were in no hurry.
8. The debates of Madison's resolution in Congress were conducted by
those who WROTE the Bill of Rights: the members of that first Congress.
9. Unlike "The Federalist" -- which as made clear is irrelevant to
begin with -- the debates of those who WROTE the Bill of Rights are
LEGAL AUTHORITY. It is to THOSE we refer when we want to know the
intent of those who WROTE the Bill of Rights.
10. The debate which eventuated in the Second Amendment began with
and was EXCLUSIVELY concerned with whether to have a standing army --
which the Founders/Framers considered a "bane of liberty"; a THREAT to
CIVILIAN GOV'T -- or the alternative thereto: MILITIA. Elbridge Gerry
summarized the issue during the debates of that which became the Second
Amendment with this statement:
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Id., at 182.
He makes no mention of "individual". Becasue a MILITIA is OBVIOUSLY
no more an individual than is an army. As well, and as obvious, PEOPLE
is PLURAL, as in, WE THE PEOPLE. It is NOT "We the individual," or, "I
11. That which became the Second Amendment was drawn from MILITIA
clauses in the state constitutions/bills of rights of Massachusetts,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. "Bill of Rights and the
States" (Madison House, 1992), Conley and Kaminski, at xviii.
12. Exactly as with the debates of that which became the Second
Amendment, those four MILITIA clauses include the phrase "the right of
the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [as MILITIA]"; and that is
directly associated with the phrase concerning standing armies being
the "bane of liberty"*.
*The US Constitution incorporates four references to MILITIA. The first (US Con. Art. II., s. 2, c. 1) reads:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief . . . of the Militia of
the several States, when called into the actual service of the United
And when the miltia is not in service to the United States, the commander in chief of it is the states' governor.
The second reference (US Con. Art. I., s. 8., c. 15) reads in relevant part:
"Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the
Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS
Neither the President, nor the states' governors, are going to call out the militia to "defend against" themselves.
These, in full, are the four state constitution/bills of rights MILITIA clauses from which was drawn the Second Amendment:
"Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Article XVII. The people
[PLURAL] have a right to keep and bear arms [as MILITIA] FOR THE COMMON
DEFENCE. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty,
they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the Legislature;
and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination
to the Civil authority, and be governed by it."
"North Carolina Declaration of Rights, Article XVII. That the people
[PLURAL] have a right to bear arms [as MILITIA], for the defence OF THE
STATE; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to
liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be
kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power."
"Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, Article XIII. That the people
[PLURAL] have a right to bear arms [as MILITIA] for the defense of
themselves AND THE STATE; and as standing armies in the time of peace
are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the
military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by,
the civil power."
"Vermont Declaration of Rights, Chapter I., Article XV. That the
people [PLURAL] have a right to bear arms [as MILITIA] for the defence
of themselves AND THE STATE; and, as standing armies, in the time of
peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that
the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed
by, the civil power."
13. The first draft of that which became the Second Amendment read
as follows, in full, the final clause being the ONLY "individual right"
concerning that which became the Second Amendment that was debated by
those who WROTE the Second Amendment:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [as MILITIA]
shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated** militia [NOT
"individual"] being the best security of a free country [NOT
"individual"]: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of
[AGAINST] bearing arms, shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render
military service [in the MILITIA] in person."
**The third reference to Militia in the US Constitution (US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 16) reads in full:
"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 [this done by the
states' governor and legislature] and the Authority of training the
Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
As the Constitution stipulates that Congress shall make the laws, "to regulate" means in the form of LAW,
OBVIOUSLY the final clause of that which became the Second Amendment
was VOTED DOWN. AS OBVIOUSLY, as it is the ONLY "individual right"
debated concerning that which became the Second Amendment, that it was
VOTED DOWN means that the Second Amendment has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO
WITH "INDIVIDUAL" ANYTHING.
Asserting . . . NON-law -- "Federalist Papers" -- changes NONE of
those facts, BEGINNING with the fact that the authors of "The
Federalist," IN "The Federalist," which concerned ONLY the
Constitution, REJECTED the "need" for a Bill of Rights; and the fact
that the Congressional debates of those who WROTE the Second Amendment
are _THE_ LEGAL AUTHORITY we consult to determine what those who WROTE
the Second Amendment MEANT with the Second Amendment. And as
unequivocally shown, it is SOLELY concerned with ensuring the states --
GOV'TS -- that they can keep their WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
14. The Bill of Rights, consisting of twelve proposed amendments,
were submitted to the states' legislatures for consideration on
September 25, 1789. The first two of the twelve were rejected.
15. Ratification of the Bill of Rights was completed on December 15, 1791.
16. The fouurth reference to Militia in the US Constitution reads in full:
"A Well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear Arms [as that
WELL REGULATED MILITIA], shall not be infringed."
17. SUBSEQUENTLY, on May 8, 1792, Congress enacted the "Militia Act"
of 1792, by means of which to regulate the militia in accordance with
the references to it in the Constitution -- including the Second
One can either accept those clear and unequivocal facts and that
they substantiate -- the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do
with "individual" ANYTHING -- or continue to talk anti-Constitutional