Saturday, August 25, 2018

Why We Can't Ignore the "Militia" Clause of the Second Amendment


While many defenders of private gun ownership recognize that the Second Amendment was written to provide some sort of counterbalance against the coercive power of the state, this argument is often left far too vague to reflect an accurate view of this historical context surrounding the Amendment.

More @ Mises


  1. The militia clause is a subordinate explanatory one, in the sentence of the 2nd Amendment. As the Bill of Rights was added in 1791, it references "militia" in the enumerated delegated powers of Article I, Section 8.16:

    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, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; [caps mine for emphasis]

    Notice that the Federal Government is RESTRICTED to governing only "such Part of them", the militia, or armed citizens which it EMPLOYS. Therefore the main or independence clause says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In that sentence, "the People" must refer to "militia" in the beginning clause. That reiterates that the Federal Government has NO power over them EXCEPT "such part" that it EMPLOYS. Therefore, ALL Federal laws pertaining to "the People", the armed citizenry, are unconstitutional and illegal! --Ron W