The Second Amendment is an Individual Right By Robert Greenslade - Price of Liberty
No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle
The Second Amendment is an Individual Right
By Robert Greenslade © Nitwit Press

Mission Statement Revised 8.04.04
 
Editorial Policy Revised 3.19.04
 
See Reader's
Feedback
 
Reader's Forum
 
Looking for Health NEW
 
Commentary on the News
 
Return to Home Page

November 12, 2007

In a recent article entitled: Tell me why the States needed the so-called 'Collective Right' Second Amendment?, I gave some examples of how to prove the right enumerated in the Second Amendment is an individual right without referencing the Amendment. The purpose of this article is to show that there is another amendment that can be cited to prove the right enumerated in the Second Amendment is an individual right. [EN-1]

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was allegedly ratified by several States on July 9, 1868, [EN-2] states in part:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The legislative origin of this part of the Fourteenth Amendment can be traced to the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. Following the War Between the States, Congress appointed a Committee to report "by bill or otherwise" whether the Confederate States "are entitled to be represented in either House of Congress." The Committee had a broad mission and began its work by drafting constitutional amendments that would outline the plan of reconstruction.

On January 12, 1866, a subcommittee submitted a "proposed amendment to the Constitution." Representative Bingham delivered the report of the Committee:

"The Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every State within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty, and property."

The Committee rejected this proposal, but it formed the basis for subsequent proposals. During the following months, additional proposals were considered but were also rejected.

The proposal that became Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted by Congressman Bingham and agreed to by the Committee on April 28, 1866.

Representative Stevens, speaking for the Committee, introduced the proposed amendment in the House of Representatives on May 8, 1866:

"I can hardly believe that any person can be found who will not admit that every one of these provisions is just. They are all asserted, in some form or other, in our Declaration [of Independence] or organic law. But the Constitution limits only the action of Congress, and is not a limitation on the States. This amendment supplies the defect, and allows Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States..."

On May 23, 1866, Senator Howard of Michigan introduced the proposal in the Senate. In a 1994 Duke Law Journal article, William Van Alstyne and his associates wrote the following concerning Senator Howard's remarks:

"So, in reporting the Fourteenth Amendment to the Senate on behalf of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction in 1866, Senator Jacob Meritt Howard of Michigan began by detailing the 'first section' of that amendment, i.e., the section that 'relates the privileges and immunities of citizens.' He explained that the first clause of the amendment (the 'first section'), once approved and ratified, would 'restrain the power of the States' even as Congress was already restrained (by the Bill of Rights) from abridging the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms... [etc., through the Eighth Amendment]."

Senator Howard referred to the right enumerated in the Second Amendment as a personal right of the people, not a collective right of the States. He concluded his remarks by stating:

"[T]here is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress... they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress [to] give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them. The great object of this first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

His statement that the "great object of this first section of this amendment is...to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees" proves the Second Amendment cannot be a "collective right" of the States. Fundamental guarantees pertain to the rights of the people, not so-called "collective rights" of the States. It should be noted that during this debate, there was no objection to Senator Howard's description of this part of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1871, a bill was before the House of Representatives that contemplated enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mr. Garfield, who had participated in the debates on the Amendment in 1866, stated these debates would be historic because they would settle the meaning of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

"I ask the attention of the House to the first section of that amendment, as to its scope and meaning. I hope gentlemen will bear in mind that this debate, in which so many have taken part, will become historical, as the earliest legislative construction given to this clause of the amendment. Not only the words which we put into the law, but what shall be said here in the way of defining and interpreting the meaning of the clause, may go far to settle its interpretation and its value to the country hereafter."

A few days earlier, in a debate on the same bill, Representative Bingham, still a member of House, gave a lengthy explanation of the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment as he had originally conceived it:

"Mr. Speaker, the Honorable Gentlemen from Illinois [Mr. Farnsworth] did me unwittingly, great service, when he ventured to ask me why I changed the form of the first section of the fourteenth article of amendment from the form in which I reported it to the House of February, 1866, from the Committee on Reconstruction. I had the honor to frame the amendment as reported in February, 1866, and the first section, as it now stands, letter for letter syllable for syllable, in the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, save the introductory clause defining citizens."

He continued his remarks by stating that the first eight Amendments "never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment."

It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that the intent of the lawmaker constitutes the law. This principle also applies to constitutional law. In this case, we have a direct quote from the individual who framed the wording of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment - "letter for letter syllable for syllable." The intent of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, as stated by its author, was to make the limitations enumerated in the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. Thus, from a constitutional standpoint, adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment made the restraint contained in the Second Amendment, concerning the individual right to keep and bear arms, enforceable against every State in the Union.

The intent of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment disproves the "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Brady Campaign contends the Second Amendment was adopted "to prevent the federal government from disarming the State militias."

"The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the 'anti-federalists' feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias."

If this was an accurate statement, then Congressman Bingham could not have included a "collective right" Second Amendment in the limitations of Section 1. He would have had to omit it because this provision prevents the States from infringing the rights of the people.

As stated by Congressman Bingham, the intent of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was to extend the limitations enumerated in the first 8 amendments to the individual State governments. [EN-3] If the Second Amendment was adopted "to prevent the federal government from disarming the State militias," as the Brady Campaign asserts, then Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment extended this prohibition to the individual States. In other words, this provision would bring into play the limitations of the Second Amendment to prevent the States from disarming themselves. In addition, it would give the federal government the power to prevent the States from disarming themselves. The absurdity of this can be seen by the following example. If a State like Nevada attempted to disarm its militia, this section would give Nevada standing to go to federal court and sue Nevada to prevent Nevada from disarming itself.

As shown above, the original intent of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was to grant the people a remedy against a State in the event it attempted to violate the prohibitions enumerated in the first 8 Amendments to the Bill of Rights. Thus, the right enumerated in the Second Amendment has to be an individual right because Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant a State a remedy against itself or the actions of the federal government.

EN-1. This article is a re-write of an article I wrote for another publication in 2003 entitled: Firearms and the Fourteenth Amendment.

EN-2. For an interesting article asserting that the Fourteenth Amendment was not properly ratified, see: "There is No "Fourteenth Amendment!" by David Lawrence, U.S. News & World Report, September 27, 1957.

EN-3. The reader will note that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment stated the first 8 Amendments in the Bill of Rights were restraints on the powers of the federal government. It was never asserted that the Amendments granted the people any rights. See paragraph 1 of the preamble to the Bill of Rights to understand the original intent of the Amendments.

Your comments welcome!

Now Available! See Editor's review here.

"The Bill of Rights Does Not Grant You Any Constitutional Rights"
By Robert Greenslade and Claude Ellsworth

$10.00-includes shipping and any applicable sales tax.

Send to-

PSCS
1125B Arnold Drive #123
Martinez, CA 94553

Note: We have several hundred copies that contain a few minor typos in a couple of quotes and a footnote. The average reader would probably miss them. However, with the purchase of a book we are offering these as seconds for $3.00 each to cover shipping in the event the reader wants to give a copy to a friend or relative. There is no limit and this offer is good until they are all gone.

Email with any questions concerning the book to-rbgreenslade [at] yahoo.com

Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob

The Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character: Being a Review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages.

Archives

The 2004 Declaration of Independence

The Constitution and YOU Part 1

The Constitution and YOU Part 2

The Constitution and YOU Part 3

"Newspapers in Education" needs an Education on the Constitution and Second Amendment

If Women have the Right to an Abortion then I have the Right to Own a Firearm

Left Wing Socialist wants to make Minutemen Domestic Terrorists

A Catch-22 will Stop Plan by Democrats to Pull American Troops out of Iraq

Plan to Give the District of Columbia a Voting Representative in the House of Representatives Unconstitutional

Hillary has a Bogeyman in her Closet Concerning her Latest Position on the War in Iraq

Out of Chaos comes Control

"Government of the People, by the People and for the People" -- or Not?

Would the Repeal of the Second Amendment Empower the Federal Government and Negate the Right to Own a Firearm?

Are the Barry Bonds' Record-Setting Baseballs Subject to the Federal Income Tax?

The Constitution did not Abolish the System of Government Established by the Articles of Confederation and Consolidate the States into One Nation

Tell me why the States needed the so-called "Collective Right" Second Amendment?

Rudy Giuliani shows his Ignorance of the Second Amendment

Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade