What Does It Mean To Bear Arms?

BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 8 months ago

Tenth Amendment Center:

In “What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?” Clayton E. Cramer and Joseph Edward Olson provide solid historical context proving that the phrase was used repeatedly when referring to non-military individuals possessing weapons.

“Those who argue that the original meaning of the Second Amendment was only to protect a collective right, either of the states to maintain militias, or perhaps of citizens to jointly form militias, assert that “bear arms” refers exclusively or at least overwhelmingly, to the collective, military carrying of weapons,” they write. “If ‘bear arms’ referred only to the military carrying or use of arms, then the right protected by the Second Amendment would not be an individual right to possess or carry arms for personal self-defense. The right would be for a government organized militia, or at best, to exercise what the Tennessee Supreme Court acknowledged was a right to revolution.”

While pointing out that historical documents written at the time of the Second Amendment referenced by many scholars generally used the phrase “bear arms” to refer to military uses, Cramer and Olson say that this is due to a bias selection problem.

“Searching more comprehensive collections of English language works published before 1820 shows that there are a number of uses that are clearly individual, and have nothing to do with military service. Some of these uses are by authors and in contexts that give special weight to an individual rights understanding.”

Among their historical evidence is a law written in England during the reign of King Henry VIII making it unlawful for any Welsh resident to “bring or bear, or cause to be brought or borne to the same Sessions or Court, or to any place within the distance of two Miles from the same Sessions or Court, nor to any Town, Church, Fair, Market, or other Congregation . . . nor in the Highways in affray of the King’s Peace, or the King’s liege People, any Bill, Long-bow, Cross-bow, Hand-gun, Sword, Staff, Dagger, Halberd, Morespike, Spear, or any other manner of Weapon . . . .”

“The specific problem that the statute sought to correct was not even Welsh rebellion,” Cramer and Olson write, “but simple criminal actions interfering with the operation of the courts.”

Another English statue intended to disarm Scottish Highlanders also uses the term “bear arms” in referring to requirements for amnesty (emphasis added).

That from and after the time of affixing any such summons as aforesaid, no person or persons residing within the bounds therein mentioned, shall be sued or prosecuted for his or their having, or having had, bearing, or having borne arms at any time before the several days to be prefixed or limited by summons as aforesaid, for the respective persons and districts to deliver up their arms. . . .

This is a good essay.  While I do not ever advocate deference to international law or precedent, not even from our own English heritage, it is quite useful to understand the common usage of words and common practices of the times that led to the documents to which we are all supposed to live.

One can also see the nibbling around the edges of gun control, even in these words above, with the worst of it being gun control as a catalyst for the American war of independence.  Our forefathers fought against the notion of the divine right of kings and for the idea of covenant as seen in the light of continental Calvinism.


Comments

  1. On March 9, 2016 at 8:52 am, Frank_in_Spokane said:

    ” … I do not ever advocate deference to international law or precedent, not even from our own English heritage … ”

    Yup. As good as our law tradition is, it us ONLY good where it is rooted in God’s law. Wherever it deviates, tyrrany ensues. Exhibit A: The Statist presuppositions behind eminent domain. (See Jezebel, Ahab and Naboth.)

  2. On March 9, 2016 at 11:17 am, gyrwan said:

    “Those who argue that the original meaning of the Second Amendment was only to protect a collective right, …”

    I will now pretend as though Locke’s conception of the origin of rights had some bearing on U.S. law.

    There is no such thing as a collective right. IF rights originate as Locke suggested, there CANNOT be any such thing. No further argument is needed to dismiss the argument cited above, ….. IF rights originate as Locke described.

    If rights do not originate as Locke says; then, … all bets are off.

    One doesn’t have to look too far back into history to figure out that some precedents are followed, and other precedents ignored — even precedents “set-in-stone” like, say, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. An in-depth search of history and legal precedent misses the point. Either Locke was right, or Locke was wrong.

    When convenient, Global Warmists will claim that “Climate is not weather”. Well, what else is “climate”? What could it possibly be, other than the sum of weather over time?

    A collective right can, likewise, ONLY be the sum of individual rights.

    Even if protection/enforcement of a right was given to the collective (i.e., government) acting as an agent, in consideration for individuals foregoing the protection/enforcement of rights on their own; that permission and agreement can be revoked at any time by the individuals who, in the first place, invested the agency with their authority. It is inalienable.

    The idea that somehow a group of people can have a right that none of its constituent members actually posess, is madness. It is the equivalent of showing up to McDonald’s with no money and, recognizing that they won’t give you your Big Mac for free, waiting for five or six of your equally penniless friends to show up, … at which point (even though not one of you has any money) you will collectively be able to afford a Big Mac for each of you.

    Selection of historical precedents, biased or not, ain’t in it. A little understanding of what rights are goes a long way, and can prevent delving down various legalistic rabbit-holes for answers that will never really hold water.

  3. On March 9, 2016 at 11:29 am, Herschel Smith said:

    But make sure you understand the points I made above. I argued against deference to things other than the U.S. constitution. But it does pay to understand common usage of words. Language, as philosopher Gordon Clark argues, is words as tags or pointers to thoughts. That’s how man can communicate thoughts to other men. They tag their thoughts with things that mean the same thing to others. Otherwise, language is illogical gibberish and nonsense.

    So the point was not that their arguments of collective rights are worthy of our attention, but that common usage of the day was that bearing arms meant individually.

    Otherwise, I concur wholeheartedly with everything you said. You made good points, quite obviously.

  4. On March 9, 2016 at 7:58 pm, gyrwan said:

    Maybe I belabored the point about “collective rights”. But the larger point I was making was about the nature & origin of rights. Like you say, tagging ideas with words. While you concentrate on the meaning of the right “to bear arms”, you could just as easily be concentrating on the right to “bear arms”:

    https://akiaeiecs.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/secondamendmenttherighttobeararms2.jpg

    If you don’t know what a “right” is, or why it’s a “right”; then the wording after “a right to:” becomes meaningless. To know these things, you MUST defer to something other than the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights. Rights pre-exist them. Whether or not something is a right is not determined by its usage in precedent, in law, in literature, or in language.

    IF the drafters of the Bill of Rights, as well as the States and citizens who ratified it, had intended that it refer only to the “collective, military carrying of weapons”; would that be it, then? End of story. No individual “right” there.

    Who are we trying to convince here? And what are we trying to convince them of? That “bearing” (i.e., “carrying”, “holding”, “wearing”) weapons is a right because the Constitution says so? Because that was the original intent?

    To what end? Are you trying to persuade those who have already jettisoned any adherence to The DoI, the Constitution, and the BoR? Those who have evidenced time and again that original intent is a fart in the wind; that precedent is only precedent if they follow it; and, that they will say what your rights are and are not? Those whose “tags” of thoughts and ideas are a forever-shifting labyrinth of non-definitions used differentially depending on the circumstances?

    Or, are you saying that individuals have a right to bear (i.e., “carry”) arms granted to them by nature and nature’s God?

    The former is a fool’s errand, and the latter has no need of reference to English common usage in the 18th century or earlier (or, for that matter, to the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights).

  5. On March 10, 2016 at 10:17 am, madoradataman said:

    Interesting discussion (… and for the record, I agree with the right of self defense and all thereunto pertaining as a God given or natural right.

    … but, as Billy Clinton and others might quip — What does is mean? ;-)

  6. On March 10, 2016 at 10:51 am, Herschel Smith said:

    Well, I think you’ve been with me for a while now, and you know as well as anyone that I don’t care much about the second amendment and ensconce my rights squarely in the Holy Scriptures.
    That said, it’s important to know what we can about that document around which our people are covenanted to live together. Another way of saying it is that I am discussing a 50,000 foot view, rather than digging into the roots of my rights.

    When the inevitable comes … and we all know that one day it will … we need to have made the case that the government and many of its people broke covenant with other of its citizens, thus invoking the curses of breaking the covenant.

    It would be rather like a woman making the case before her Christian friends that she is divorcing her husband because of continuing, unrepentant infidelity, but that she doesn’t have proof of this. She just wants to leave him and its the best she can come up with at the moment (judges have taken guns away from spouses for just such baseless allegations). That’s not good enough. There needs to be evidence. The evidence is there for all to see in the case we are building that there was a covenant, and that covenant was broken by one of the parties. Broken covenants are serious things to man and to God.

  7. On March 10, 2016 at 4:25 pm, Fred said:

    “Broken covenants are serious things to man and to God.”
    Amen.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment


You are currently reading "What Does It Mean To Bear Arms?", entry #14919 on The Captain's Journal.

This article is filed under the category(s) Guns and was published March 8th, 2016 by Herschel Smith.

If you're interested in what else the The Captain's Journal has to say, you might try thumbing through the archives and visiting the main index, or; perhaps you would like to learn more about TCJ.

26th MEU (10)
Abu Muqawama (12)
ACOG (2)
ACOGs (1)
Afghan National Army (36)
Afghan National Police (17)
Afghanistan (704)
Afghanistan SOFA (4)
Agriculture in COIN (3)
AGW (1)
Air Force (40)
Air Power (10)
al Qaeda (83)
Ali al-Sistani (1)
America (22)
Ammunition (284)
Animals (297)
Ansar al Sunna (15)
Anthropology (3)
Antonin Scalia (1)
AR-15s (378)
Arghandab River Valley (1)
Arlington Cemetery (2)
Army (87)
Assassinations (2)
Assault Weapon Ban (29)
Australian Army (7)
Azerbaijan (4)
Backpacking (3)
Badr Organization (8)
Baitullah Mehsud (21)
Basra (17)
BATFE (229)
Battle of Bari Alai (2)
Battle of Wanat (18)
Battle Space Weight (3)
Bin Laden (7)
Blogroll (3)
Blogs (24)
Body Armor (23)
Books (3)
Border War (18)
Brady Campaign (1)
Britain (38)
British Army (35)
Camping (5)
Canada (17)
Castle Doctrine (1)
Caucasus (6)
CENTCOM (7)
Center For a New American Security (8)
Charity (3)
China (16)
Christmas (16)
CIA (30)
Civilian National Security Force (3)
Col. Gian Gentile (9)
Combat Outposts (3)
Combat Video (2)
Concerned Citizens (6)
Constabulary Actions (3)
Coolness Factor (3)
COP Keating (4)
Corruption in COIN (4)
Council on Foreign Relations (1)
Counterinsurgency (218)
DADT (2)
David Rohde (1)
Defense Contractors (2)
Department of Defense (210)
Department of Homeland Security (26)
Disaster Preparedness (5)
Distributed Operations (5)
Dogs (15)
Donald Trump (27)
Drone Campaign (4)
EFV (3)
Egypt (12)
El Salvador (1)
Embassy Security (1)
Enemy Spotters (1)
Expeditionary Warfare (17)
F-22 (2)
F-35 (1)
Fallujah (17)
Far East (3)
Fathers and Sons (2)
Favorite (1)
Fazlullah (3)
FBI (39)
Featured (190)
Federal Firearms Laws (18)
Financing the Taliban (2)
Firearms (1,798)
Football (1)
Force Projection (35)
Force Protection (4)
Force Transformation (1)
Foreign Policy (27)
Fukushima Reactor Accident (6)
Ganjgal (1)
Garmsir (1)
general (15)
General Amos (1)
General James Mattis (1)
General McChrystal (44)
General McKiernan (6)
General Rodriguez (3)
General Suleimani (9)
Georgia (19)
GITMO (2)
Google (1)
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (1)
Gun Control (1,672)
Guns (2,338)
Guns In National Parks (3)
Haditha Roundup (10)
Haiti (2)
HAMAS (7)
Haqqani Network (9)
Hate Mail (8)
Hekmatyar (1)
Heroism (5)
Hezbollah (12)
High Capacity Magazines (16)
High Value Targets (9)
Homecoming (1)
Homeland Security (3)
Horses (2)
Humor (72)
Hunting (38)
ICOS (1)
IEDs (7)
Immigration (114)
India (10)
Infantry (4)
Information Warfare (4)
Infrastructure (4)
Intelligence (23)
Intelligence Bulletin (6)
Iran (171)
Iraq (379)
Iraq SOFA (23)
Islamic Facism (64)
Islamists (98)
Israel (19)
Jaish al Mahdi (21)
Jalalabad (1)
Japan (3)
Jihadists (81)
John Nagl (5)
Joint Intelligence Centers (1)
JRTN (1)
Kabul (1)
Kajaki Dam (1)
Kamdesh (9)
Kandahar (12)
Karachi (7)
Kashmir (2)
Khost Province (1)
Khyber (11)
Knife Blogging (7)
Korea (4)
Korengal Valley (3)
Kunar Province (20)
Kurdistan (3)
Language in COIN (5)
Language in Statecraft (1)
Language Interpreters (2)
Lashkar-e-Taiba (2)
Law Enforcement (6)
Lawfare (14)
Leadership (6)
Lebanon (6)
Leon Panetta (2)
Let Them Fight (2)
Libya (14)
Lines of Effort (3)
Littoral Combat (8)
Logistics (50)
Long Guns (1)
Lt. Col. Allen West (2)
Marine Corps (280)
Marines in Bakwa (1)
Marines in Helmand (67)
Marjah (4)
MEDEVAC (2)
Media (68)
Medical (146)
Memorial Day (6)
Mexican Cartels (41)
Mexico (61)
Michael Yon (6)
Micromanaging the Military (7)
Middle East (1)
Military Blogging (26)
Military Contractors (5)
Military Equipment (25)
Militia (9)
Mitt Romney (3)
Monetary Policy (1)
Moqtada al Sadr (2)
Mosul (4)
Mountains (25)
MRAPs (1)
Mullah Baradar (1)
Mullah Fazlullah (1)
Mullah Omar (3)
Musa Qala (4)
Music (25)
Muslim Brotherhood (6)
Nation Building (2)
National Internet IDs (1)
National Rifle Association (97)
NATO (15)
Navy (30)
Navy Corpsman (1)
NCOs (3)
News (1)
NGOs (3)
Nicholas Schmidle (2)
Now Zad (19)
NSA (3)
NSA James L. Jones (6)
Nuclear (62)
Nuristan (8)
Obama Administration (221)
Offshore Balancing (1)
Operation Alljah (7)
Operation Khanjar (14)
Ossetia (7)
Pakistan (165)
Paktya Province (1)
Palestine (5)
Patriotism (7)
Patrolling (1)
Pech River Valley (11)
Personal (73)
Petraeus (14)
Pictures (1)
Piracy (13)
Pistol (4)
Pizzagate (21)
Police (656)
Police in COIN (3)
Policy (15)
Politics (980)
Poppy (2)
PPEs (1)
Prisons in Counterinsurgency (12)
Project Gunrunner (20)
PRTs (1)
Qatar (1)
Quadrennial Defense Review (2)
Quds Force (13)
Quetta Shura (1)
RAND (3)
Recommended Reading (14)
Refueling Tanker (1)
Religion (495)
Religion and Insurgency (19)
Reuters (1)
Rick Perry (4)
Rifles (1)
Roads (4)
Rolling Stone (1)
Ron Paul (1)
ROTC (1)
Rules of Engagement (75)
Rumsfeld (1)
Russia (37)
Sabbatical (1)
Sangin (1)
Saqlawiyah (1)
Satellite Patrols (2)
Saudi Arabia (4)
Scenes from Iraq (1)
Second Amendment (685)
Second Amendment Quick Hits (2)
Secretary Gates (9)
Sharia Law (3)
Shura Ittehad-ul-Mujahiden (1)
SIIC (2)
Sirajuddin Haqqani (1)
Small Wars (72)
Snipers (9)
Sniveling Lackeys (2)
Soft Power (4)
Somalia (8)
Sons of Afghanistan (1)
Sons of Iraq (2)
Special Forces (28)
Squad Rushes (1)
State Department (23)
Statistics (1)
Sunni Insurgency (10)
Support to Infantry Ratio (1)
Supreme Court (62)
Survival (201)
SWAT Raids (57)
Syria (38)
Tactical Drills (38)
Tactical Gear (15)
Taliban (168)
Taliban Massing of Forces (4)
Tarmiyah (1)
TBI (1)
Technology (21)
Tehrik-i-Taliban (78)
Terrain in Combat (1)
Terrorism (96)
Thanksgiving (13)
The Anbar Narrative (23)
The Art of War (5)
The Fallen (1)
The Long War (20)
The Surge (3)
The Wounded (13)
Thomas Barnett (1)
Transnational Insurgencies (5)
Tribes (5)
TSA (25)
TSA Ineptitude (14)
TTPs (4)
U.S. Border Patrol (6)
U.S. Border Security (19)
U.S. Sovereignty (24)
UAVs (2)
UBL (4)
Ukraine (10)
Uncategorized (99)
Universal Background Check (3)
Unrestricted Warfare (4)
USS Iwo Jima (2)
USS San Antonio (1)
Uzbekistan (1)
V-22 Osprey (4)
Veterans (3)
Vietnam (1)
War & Warfare (419)
War & Warfare (41)
War Movies (4)
War Reporting (21)
Wardak Province (1)
Warriors (6)
Waziristan (1)
Weapons and Tactics (79)
West Point (1)
Winter Operations (1)
Women in Combat (21)
WTF? (1)
Yemen (1)

November 2024
October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006

about · archives · contact · register

Copyright © 2006-2024 Captain's Journal. All rights reserved.