The intent of the Second Amendment Was to Guarantee States Rights through militias and the right of the citizens to own and bear weapons

Arguments that float around today about whether or not the Second Amendment applies to the states, is smoke and mirrors, thrown out by those that oppose the rights of citizens to own, carry, or bear arms. All arguments against the Second Amendment is based on either a deliberate attack on it, or a misunderstanding of the intention of the Bill of Rights founders.

The federal government was created by the several states extant at the time of the creation of the constitution. However, the states were well aware of how dangerous and abusive a government can be from their experience with the English government that was over them until the Declaration of Independence.

The states envision themselves as sovereign states and they created the federal government for several reasons: To enable commerce to be carried on among the states by establishing a mail system, to raise an army in case of threats by other nations, and to make treaties with other countries. The representatives of the states in forming the constitution developed the Bill of Rights to ensure their sovereignty by the central government and to provide a safety net against abuses by the new federal government against the states. Therefore, all of the amendments of the Bill of Rights are automatically “incorporated” to the states.

The form of the Second Amendment sent to the states for ratification is as follows: “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.” The first clause, is prefatory, explaining the reason for the amendment. A militia was necessary to ensure that each state was to retain their rights to be able to defend itself from federal abuses, or from other states. The second clause explains who were to make up the militia and that possessing arms by the people should not be infringed. This would indicate the people keeping their own arms, not government issue, members or non-members of the state’s militia.

We need to look at the statements of the founders to know the intent of the Second Amendment. Quote from Tench Coxe, a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress: “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

Statements of Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. Source.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353 Source.

Does any doubt remain that the Second Amendment was to guarantee states rights, and their right to their own militias and the right of their citizens to own and bear personal weapons? We don’t need to ‘incorporate the Second Amendment into the ‘Fourteenth, it is there.’ It is already a right for every American Citizen, regardless of which state he resides.

Gun Rights Organizations File Lawsuit To Stop Seattle Ban

Second Amendment Foundation
Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:44pm EDT
For Immediate Release: 10/28/2009
BELLEVUE, Wash.--(Business Wire)--
The Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association and five local residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a new Seattle parks regulation that bans firearms, arguing that the ban violates Washington State`s long-standing preemption statute. They are joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors. Read Article Here.

Another Second Amendment Case Goes to the Supreme Court

Posted: 09/30/09, from Gun Owners of America
Written by John Velleco
Wednesday, 30 September 2009 21:17

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the City of Chicago's ban on handguns, a case that will test the reach of the Second Amendment.

In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that: "The Second protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."

That ruling shattered years of anti-gun revisionist history and misinformation that claimed the Second Amendment protected a "collective" right of the states to maintain something like the National Guard. . . Read Article Here.

Leftist Lies About the Second Amendment Revealed by Our Forefathers

Second Amendment Intentions

Lately, we’ve heard members of congress, some in the media, and left wing bloggers telling us that the ‘militia’ mentioned in the Second Amendment meant everything from the military, the national guard, or a state organized militia, and not individual citizens. If we go to those that were involved in forming the Constitution, what do they say the militia is?

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"A Well Regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789. James Madison.

And how did they approach private ownership of personal weapons?

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2, Article on the Bill of Rights

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

And what about the question about whether or not the Second Commandment applies to the states:

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams, quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

And what about those who claim the Second Amendment applies only to hunting, which is so ludicrous, it needs not to be discussed. However, let us humor them. What did Thomas Paine think:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry, American Patriot

A lot more quotes are available for those who want to research more. But, this should give us an idea on what our forefathers determined in the meaning of the Second Amendment. It is clear that citizens make up the militia; that private ownership was intended; and that it was not for hunting only. We need to remain vigilant to make sure we do not give up the rights preserved to us under the Second Amendment.

N Y Shop Owner Protects Self & Employee with Shotgun

Originally posted Friday, August 14, 2009, by The Unreligious Right blog.

The Second Amendment in Action

Four criminals picked the wrong Harlem shop to rob. As they tried to put plastic cuffs on two employees, beating one who resisted, 72-year old Charles Augusto Jr grabbed his shotgun. He killed one of attackers and mortally wounded the second. The other two were also hit and fled bleeding. Both were found by police and arrested. Augusto, obviously acting in self-defense, was not charged.

Had Mr. Augusto relied solely on the police for protection, rather than arming himself, at best he and his employees would have been robbed and possibly beaten. At worst he'd be lying dead, after the criminals decided it might be better not to leave witnesses. Fortunately he didn't have to find out what might have happened.

In New York City, one must have a permit to own a shotgun. The fees required to obtain a permit are prohibitive to the poor and would prevent them from owning a shotgun for defense:

The application fee is $140.00. The fingerprint fee is $94.25 for fingerprints done on the Livescan machine. If you require inked prints, the fee is $105.25. You may pay the fees with a credit card or two POSTAL MONEY ORDERS, BANK TELLER’S CHECKS OR CERTIFIED CHECKS. Cash is not accepted. Please make your money orders or checks payable to the “New York City Police Department.” No personal checks will be accepted. See all NYPD Requirements here.

These requirements literally restrict the rights of many citizens of New York City their rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.