Argument: The militia was of primary concern over individual rights in writing the 2nd Amendment

Support

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation. This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a Federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shays’ Rebellion.

In 1787, to address these weaknesses, the Philadelphia Convention was convened with the charter of amending the Articles. When the convention concluded with a proposed Constitution, those who debated the ratification of the Constitution divided into two camps; the Federalists (who supported ratification of the Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (who opposed it).

Among their objections to the Constitution, anti-Federalists feared creation of a standing army not under civilian control that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened recently in the American Colonies and Europe.[25] Although the anti-Federalists were ultimately unsuccessful at blocking ratification of the Constitution, through the Massachusetts Compromise they laid the groundwork to ensure that a Bill of Rights would be drafted, which would provide constitutional guarantees against encroachment by the government of certain rights.

The Federalists on the other hand held that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, particularly since the Federal Government could never raise a standard army powerful enough to overcome the militia. Leading Federalist James Madison wrote:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.[26]

Similarly, Federalist Noah Webster wrote:

Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.[27]

One example given by Webster of a “power” that the people could resist was that of a standing army:

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[26]

The controversy of a standing army for the United States existed in context of the Continental Forces that had won the American Revolutionary War which consisted of both the standing Continental Army created by the Continental Congress and of State and Militia Units. In opposition, the British Forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist Militia, and Hessian mercenaries.

Federalists, on the other hand, believed that federal government must be trusted and that the army and the militias “ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal” of federal government. This belief was fundamentally stated by Alexander Hamilton:

The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.[28]

The origin of the Second Amendment also occurred in context of an ongoing debate about “the people” fighting governmental tyranny, (as described by Anti-federalists); or the risk of mob rule of “the people”, (as described by the Federalists). These feelings can be seen in the “a force superior” quote of Noah Webster above, and in contrast, when John Adams wrote of his fears about Antifederalists in the ongoing revolution in France:

The State is in critical Circumstances, and have been brought into them by the Heat and Impatience of the People. If nothing will bring them to consideration, I fear they will suffer[29]

Reaching a compromise between these widely disparate positions was not easy, but nonetheless, a compromise was negotiated with the result being the Second Amendment.[1]

How the drafting of the 2nd Amendment reflects a focus on the collective, militia right

The original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives of the first session of the First Congress on June 8th, 1789 was:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”[2]

On July 28, 1789 the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment. On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

“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 shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”[3]

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words “For the common defence” next to the words “Bear Arms” was defeated. The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words “necessary to”:

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 argument underlying this series of drafts is that the changes highlight the focus of the Amendment as being the right to bear arms for the sole purpose of the maintenance of a well-regulated militia that could uphold the security of the state. There was never a version of the draft that included anything about an individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense or for any other personal reasons such as hunting. The focus was always on how the right to bear arms related to the formation of a militia necessary in the security of a free state.