GBC News Archives

It has long been clear to me, as a Constitution nerd, that the NRA-sponsored interpretation of Constitution’s Second Amendment represents a radical departure from anything close to the original purpose of the amendment. A strong new piece has added to my certainty, so I write today to pass it along. Details of that piece, and a link to it, are below, but first some background: You have only to read the opening words of the Second Amendment – “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” – to see plainly the idea behind the amendment. It was adopted in the early days after the Constitution had created a more powerful national government (replacing the much weaker Articles of Confederation) to reassure states concerned that Congress might try to disarm the state militias. The state militias were then the chief military force of the nation. The Constitution did give Congress the power to create and arm a federal military  (although, interestingly, they funded it only on a short-term basis). The language (Article I; Section 8; subsection 12) gives Congress the power: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” No similar language (in the next subsection) places a similar short-term limit on funds for a Navy. Only an Army. The states didn’t have navies and the Framers were prepared to fund a permanent federal Navy to protect the Atlantic coast. If you’re surprised or still skeptical that the plan was to rely primarily on the state militias for land wars, Art. I; section 8; subsections 15 and 16 specify that Congress is empowered: 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the

Read more from our friends at the NRA...