Emerson Case Letter

This correspondence was received by the Second Amendment Foundation on December 17, 1999.
The letter was later expanded by Young to include more quotes from Ben Franklin.

Emerson Case Letter

Introduction

I, David Young, have made it my avocation to study the American Constitutional Era by reading the period historical documents, more specifically those relating to the formation and ratification of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Being familiar with this historical information, it is apparent to me that the fundamental controversy which exists concerning the intent of the Second Amendment to the Constitution can be readily settled by simple reference to source historical materials which the legal profession would normally not be aware of.

The Second Amendment states:

"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."

There are generally two interpretations which have been proposed regarding the intent of this Bill of Rights provision. The first, that it protects a right of individuals to keep and bear arms against violation by the Federal Government, in the same sense that the First and Third through Eighth Amendments to the Constitution protect specific rights of individuals. The second interpretation is that it instead protects a collective right to keep and bear arms, usually advanced as the right or authority of the state governments to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining their militia, or a similar variant, against violation by the Federal Government, and that NO right of individuals was intended to be protected by it.

The latter interpretation is much more accurately described as an EXCLUSIVELY collective right interpretation, since any relationship to individual rights is specifically excluded. Understood this way, it is apparent that the two conflicting interpretations are mutually exclusive. If one can be shown to be correct, the other logically must be entirely fallacious.

In any discussion of the intent of the Second Amendment it is necessary to avoid the trap which many have fallen into of tearing it out of its Bill of Rights context and discussing it as just a sentence unrelated to its Bill of Rights origin and purpose. Some fall into the trap further and also tear the Second Amendment in half, only discussing either the first or second clause, and ignoring the other one. Another major problem which appears when discussing the intent of the Second Amendment is a plethora of terms which the founding generation never used. These often include "state militias", "collective rights", "militia membership", "the National Guard", etc., etc. By utilizing the original historical sources, the ambiguous, confusing, unrelated and misleading nature of such terminolgy can be easily avoided.

The purpose of this paper is to examine period historical sources from the Constitutional Era (1787-1791) to determine which of these two general interpretations is correct based upon the understanding at the time this Bill of Rights provision was proposed in the ratifying conventions, adopted by Congress, and ratified as part of the Constitution by the requisite number of state legislatures.

In this paper, the following designations- [OSA ppp#n] - are page and item number (or full paragraph number) references to documents from the collection entitled The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed Populace 1787-1792, edited by the author. Note that this paper utilizes only a small fraction of the available period source material, all of which can be examined in The Origin of the Second Amendment, and all of which is fully consistent with the position taken by the author in this paper.

Note that if ANY source historical evidence exists which indicates the intent of the Second Amendment is to protect an individual right, the applicability of the exclusively collective right interpretation immediately becomes very suspect. If there is any considerable amount of historical evidence indicating an individual right intent for the Amendment, the exclusively collective right interpretation becomes completely untenable.

This paper will most amply demonstrate that there is, in fact, extensive and overwhelming source historical evidence indicating that it was the intent of the Second Amendment to protect a right of individuals to keep and bear their own arms. This historical evidence is not only clear and voluminous, it is also consistent with all other period historical evidence in every respect. There is also clear historical evidence that it was not the intent of the Second Amendment to protect any right or authority of the state governments in any way. What this historical source material proves conclusively is that the EXCLUSIVELY collective rights interpretation is fallacious, and is undoubtedly a completely modern invention created to explain away the Second Amendment and justify evasion of the intended limitations upon the Federal Government it contains.

THE INTENT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The Second Amendment is part of the U.S. Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution). It was intended to be part of the Bill of Rights. The predecessors of the Second Amendment in Congress were Bill of Rights proposals. The first congressional proposal relating to the Second Amendment was a Bill of Rights suggestion introduced into Congress by James Madison on June 8, 1789 as part of a long list of Bill of Rights provisions relating to what Madison described in his notes as "private rights".[OSA 645]

Madison had promised to support a Federal Bill of Rights at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in order to get enough Antifederalist support there for ratification of the Constitution. [OSA 694#2; also 700] He fulfilled this promise by introduction of his list of "private rights" proposals for amendments to the Constitution which he described in Congress on June 8, 1789 as follows:

"I have proposed . . . a declaration of the rights of the people."[OSA 660#2]

There was little discussion of the clauses which became the Second Amendment within Congress, and little can therefor be determined from Congressional debate regarding the intent of the Second Amendment. There is nothing in the Congressional debates which indicate there was any exclusively collective right understanding on the part of Congressmen relative to Madison's provisions, or Congressional rewording of them.

The Federalist controlled Congress did not adopt any proposed amendments to the Constitution which were not among those originally introduced by Federalist leader James Madison on June 8, 1789, and Madison did not propose any amendments relative to any of the powers GIVEN to the Federal Government in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Every one of Madison's "private rights" list proposals, except the conscientious objectors clause, was adopted in the proposed amendments to the Constitution by Congress, and every one of those was ratified becoming part of the Bill of Rights.

Since James Madison grouped his amendment proposals to be inserted within the Constitution next to related material, [OSA 654-656] we can discover for certain whether Madison understood his predecessor of the Second Amendment as an individual right or not by examining where he placed it in relation to his other proposed individual rights protections, such as those for First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment protected rights. It turns out that the predecessor of the Second Amendment was grouped right along with these other provisions protecting specific individual rights. Madison's Second Amendment related provision was positioned among his "private rights" proposals between the right to petition and that protecting against quartering of soldiers.

This provision protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms appeared between the right of petition and protection against quartering in every Congressional listing of proposed amendments to the Constitution, including the Select Committee of Eleven proposals,[OSA 680] the Committee of the Whole House proposals, the proposals of the House of Representatives, [OSA 706-707] those of the Senate, those of the Conference Committee, and thus is in that same position today as part of the U.S. Bill of Rights. This consistency of location within the Bill of Rights "private rights" provisions indicates there was a related understanding of individual intent for this provision as well as the others rights consistently listed surrounding it.

Madison intended that his listing, including at least twenty specific individual rights, all be inserted directly after Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which Madison understood as a clause providing protection for private rights.[OSA 231] If there are any private rights at all among Madison's complete listing of proposed amendments to the Constitution, it has to be this listing of specific individual rights, containing the predecessor of the Second Amendment along with predecessors of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight, and Ninth Amendment protected rights which Madison was referring to. This is clear and unmistakable evidence that Madison considered his proposal on the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the well regulated militia concept as protecting an individual right - and nothing more.

Note how selective James Madison was regarding rights which we understand today as individual rights, but which Madison did not include in his collection of "private rights" because they also related to the judicial structure of the government. For example, Madison proposed to insert his amendment relating to the 7th Amendment, jury trials in civil cases, in Article 3, Section 2, rather than include it in his private rights list. He did the same for provision for grand jury indictment and juries of the vicinage, which ultimately ended up as part of the 5th and 6th Amendments, respectively.[OSA 656] This indicates that Madison considered these propositions as relating as much to the judicial system itself as to the individual rights involved, and thus he intended to insert them in related provisions of the Constitution dealing with the judicial branch of government, rather than where his list of "private rights" would be inserted. In other words, those three rights did not relate SOLELY to individual or private rights to Madison's understanding the way all listed in the "private rights" list did.

All of the above facts help make it clear that the author of the Bill of Rights proposals understood his Second Amendment related provision, located in the "private rights" list, as relating SOLELY and ONLY to "private" or individual rights, just as all of the other provisions grouped with it related to "private" or individual rights only. (Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition, Keep and Bear Arms, No Quartering of Soldiers, Freedom From Unreasonable Searches, Trial Related Rights, No Excessive Bail, No Excessive Fines, No Cruel and Unusual Punishments, Protection of Unstated Rights)

There are NO sources indicating Madison understood his Second Amendment related provision in any other way, or that he viewed it as intended to protect the state governments in any way.

Not only did Madison himself view his Second Amendment related proposal as relating only to private rights, but EVERY COMMENT from the period on Madison's proposals indicates that the person making the comment understood Madison's Bill of Rights related propositions the same way that Madison himself did - as involving only personal, private, or individual rights.

On June 12, 1789, U.S. Senator William Grayson of Virginia wrote to Patrick Henry (who had introduced Virginia's proposed Bill of Rights and twenty other structural amendments to the Constitution into that state's Ratifying Convention) stating:

"Some gentlemen here from motives of policy have it in contemplation to effect amendments which shall effect personal liberty alone" [OSA 668] and further "Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty" [OSA 669]

Grayson referred to James Madison and to Madison's proposed amendments, and he clearly understood Madison's Bill of Rights proposals as relating to individual rights only.

The reason for the emphasis on personal liberty ALONE in Grayson's letter is that these Virginia Antifederalists, besides bill of rights provisions, wanted a large number of other amendments,[OSA 457-462] which they were not finding anywhere among the complete set of amendments offered by Federalist Madison.

The Virginia Antifederalists in addition to a bill of rights provision protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the well regulated militia concept, ALSO wanted an amendment to assure the state governments would have authority to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining their own militia. This is the intent often attributed to the Second Amendment, even though the Second Amendment contains no such idea or language to that effect - there is no reference in it to the states or the state governments, nor to any power of the states.

The Virginia Ratifying Convention had made BOTH proposals - the first, protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the well regulated militia concept, relating to individual rights, as part of their specified Bill of Rights, and the latter, the power of the states to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining their own militia, as one of their structural amendments not part of the Bill of Rights.[OSA 459#17&460#11] Federalist James Madison included the Bill of Rights proposal to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the well regulated militia concept in his private rights list along with all of the other individual rights protections of the proposed Virginia Ratifying Convention Bill of Rights. But what Madison clearly did NOT do was include the proposition protecting state power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, or any other change in the powers previously belonging only to the states and now given to the new Federal Government, among any of his amendment propositions. The state authority to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia provision would have been directly contrary to every action the Federalists had taken to create the Constitution, which contained a list of powers for the new Federal Government all of which were taken from, and were stated to be paramount to the powers of, the state governments.

On June 18, 1789, Tench Coxe's REMARKS on the first part of the AMENDMENTS to the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION appeared in a Philadelphia newspaper and was reprinted elsewhere, including New York, shortly thereafter. This two part production described and explained each of Madison's proposed amendments to the Constitution. Coxe's description of the Second Amendment related proposition was:

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people, duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which shall be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." [OSA 671]

Coxe sent a copy of the newspaper containing this article to James Madison and indicated that he was the author, [OSA 672] Madison replied to Coxe indicating that Madison's amendments project "is therefore already indebted to the co-operation of your pen."[OSA 674] There is NOT A WORD to Coxe that he had completely misinterpreted the Second Amendment related proposition, which would have been the case if the exclusively collective right interpretation has any validity whatever.

Would Madison have stood by and allowed a political supporter to publish a completely erroneous interpretation of this proposal which was being propagated across the nation newspaper to newspaper? Not very likely. Are Coxe's comments on Madison' other proposals completely incorrect, or are they not, if fact, accurate interpretations? They are accurate. Are we to assume that Coxe simply got this one, relating to the Second Amendment, all wrong, when he was perfectly able to read and understand all of Madison's other proposals? Coxe's article indicates the intent of the Second Amendment was to protect individual rights only. All other period evidence also indicates the individual intent of the Second Amendment as stated by Coxe was correct. The question to be asked is why should anyone today ignore such clear period evidence as the above and accept contrary modern viewpoints which are supported by NO period evidence whatsoever?

On June 24, 1789, Joseph Jones, a member of the Virginia Council of State, wrote a letter to James Madison in which he stated:

"I thank you for a copy of the amendments proposed to the constitution which you lately inclosed to me - they are calculated to secure the personal rights of the people so far as declarations on paper can effect the purpose" [OSA 673]

Jones was clearly of the impression that Madion's list of bill of rights "private rights" proposals related to "personal" or individual rights.

As the amendments, consisting primarily of bill of rights proposals, worked their way through the House of Representatives, comments regarding them appeared in letters of members of Congress and in some newspaper articles. ALL of these, without exception, indicate that the group of bill of rights amendments, which included the provision protecting the well regulated militia concept and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, were universally understood as related to private rights and personal liberty.

On August 9, 1789, U.S. Representative William L. Smith wrote to Edward Rutledge:

"The Committee on amendmts. have reported some, which are thought inoffensive to the federalists . . . There appears to be a disposition in our house to agree to some, which will more effectually secure private rights, without affecting the structure of Govt."[OSA 798]

Individual rights would be secured, but amendments changing the Constitution would be offensive to the Federalists who had formed it by taking powers away from the states and giving paramount versions of them to the new Federal Government. The Federalists, the creators of the Constitution, were in complete control of Congress, and were not going to change any of the politically hard fought increases in the powers of the Federal Government they had accomplished, nor create any unnecessary ambiguities in the Constitution.

The collective rights interpretation attributed to the Second Amendment, if true, would not only have created a very ambiguous change in the relationship of the powers of the Federal and state governments relative to powers over the militia, but it would have been expressed in most ambiguous language, worded as the Second Amendment is. It is apparent that NO ONE at the time understood it the way advocates of an exclusively collective right interpretation would have us understand it today.

THE PENNSYLVANIA MINORITY

Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, a leading Federalist from Pennsylvania, wrote on August 18th to Benjamin Rush in Philadelphia:

"But this Day has at length terminated the Subject of Amendments in the Comittee of the whole House, & tomorow we shall take up the Report & probably agree to the Amendments proposed, & which are nearly the same as the special Comittee of eleven had reported them . . . . I hope it will be satisfactory to our State, and as it takes in the principle Amendments which our Minority had so much at Heart".[OSA 799]

Note three major points regarding the Speaker of the House's comments above:

FIRST, that the final amendments were considered as practically the same as the Committee of Eleven's proposals. Not only is this true, but anyone can look at the Committee of Eleven's proposals [OSA 680-682] and see that they are also practically the same as Madison's original propositions.[OSA 654-656] In other words, the proposals of the House were practically the same as Madison's original propositions.

Here are the House proposals relating to the Second Amendment in chronological order:

Madison's proposal, June 8, 1789:

"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."[OSA 654-655]

Committee of Eleven's proposal, July 28, 1789:

"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."[OSA 680]

House of Representatives' proposal, August 24, 1789:

"Art. 5. 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 one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."[OSA 707]

SECOND, note that the Minority referred to by House Speaker Muhlenberg was that of the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention. The Pennsylvania Minority had proposed amendments to the Constitution for protection of individual rights found today in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution - almost the entire U.S. Bill of Rights![OSA 159-161] Pennsylvania's was the first state ratifying convention to meet after writing of the Constitution. The Pennsylvania Minority's Second Amendment related provision which Muhlenberg understood as relating to the House of Representatives proposals, and which was one Muhlenberg understood the Pennsylvania Minority had so much at heart was as follows:

"7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power."[OSA 160]

This is an obvious early predecessor of the Second Amendment. Note that it was simply a rewriting of the Pennsylvania State Declaration of Rights, which was the very first state bill of rights to indicate "that the people have a right to bear arms".[OSA 754#XIII]

THIRD, note what is entirely MISSING from the House of Representatives' amendments which Muhlenberg understands as comprising what the Pennsylvania Minority had so much at heart, but which the Pennsylvania Minority had proposed as a separate amendment:

"that the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia . . . remain with the individual states"[OSA 160#11]

Just as in the case of the Virginia Ratifying Convention, protection of the people's right to bear arms was proposed by the Pennsylvania Minority AS WELL AS an entirely separate proposal for power of the states to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining of the militia. It is obvious that not only did those of the founding generation know how to say the state governments will have power over the militia in plain English, when that is what they meant and intended to do, but also that they did not use the right of the people to bear arms language for the same purpose. These proposals are for entirely different purposes - one to protect powers of the states and worded so in unmistakable language, and the other to protect a right of the people which was clearly understood as a right of individuals and cannot be taken in any other way.

On August 20, 1789 the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer published an article relating to the amendments in Congress which included the statement: "every one of the intended alterations, but one, have been already reported by the committee of the House of Representatives in Congress".[OSA 702] The "intended alterations" referred to were the failed proposal for a short bill of rights by Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention. Here is what Samuel Adams had proposed on February 6, 1788 relating to First, Second, and Fourth Amendment protected rights, which was reprinted in the above mentioned article:

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions."[OSA 260&702]

The author who republished this in the Antifederalist Independent Gazetteer of August 20, 1789 during the Bill of Rights debate was certainly of opinion that the predecessor of the Second Amendment among the House of Representatives proposed amendments to the Constitution was a protection for the people in keeping their own arms, which was the stated intent of the Samuel Adams proposal.

On August 21, 1789, Madison wrote to Edmund Pendleton:

"The last 8 or 10 days have been spent on the subject of amendts. . . At present there is a prospect of finishing to day, the plan so far as it lies with the H. of Reps. It does not differ much from the original propositions offered on that subject."

What this indicates is that Madisons's proposals, understood as individual rights protections, have made it through the House of Representatives altered only in style and placement, not in substance. This is just another of numerous death blows to the exclusively collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment.

August 24th, as Congress finished consideration of amendments, Madison wrote that the Committee of Eleven proposals had not been much changed, and that those produced would be classed according to their affinity to each other.[OSA 705] It is obvious this is the case in the Bill of Rights, and it is obvious that the Second Amendment relates to rights of individuals in the same sense that the First and Third through Ninth Amendments among which it was ALWAYS located in the Congressional proposals relate to same.

The above sources indicate that the amendments produced by Congress were just rewording of Madison's proposals with the same intent as Madison's original provisions. There are no historical sources indicating that the fundamental intent of Madison's "private rights" proposal regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms had been changed to an exclusively collective right proposition by any action in the House. Since that would have been a complete reversal of intent, it would seem that someone among the obviously intelligent House members would have spoken of the intent to make such a change, or noticed it had somehow occurred and mentioned it. There is NO evidence such is the case.

On September 29, 1789, U.S. Senator Grayson wrote to Patrick Henry again: "the lower house sent up amendments which held out a safeguard to personal liberty in great many instances". [ OSA 717] What was sent up, the House of Representatives rewording and rearrangement of Madison's "private rights" list , once again, was viewed as relating to "personal liberty" or individual rights.[OSA 706-708]

Note that each of the above original sources, STANDING ALL BY ITSELF, completely refutes the exclusively collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. How can there be an exclusively collective right understanding of the Second Amendment if the person who wrote it, and every person who commented upon it, clearly understood that the intent was to protect personal and private rights? These sources not only indicate an individual right was being protected by the Second Amendment, many go further and indicate that a solely individual right was the intent.

Taken together, the above sources cannot be explained away in the simplistic manner which those who support an exclusively collective right wish to do. And there are a large number of other sources which clarify and back up the above sources, especially ratification era sources discussing the militia concept.

Where are the original sources representing the same period as the above sources which indicate an exclusively collective right intent for the Second Amendment? There are NO such sources, because it is very clear such was NOT the intent of the Second Amendment. If the exclusively collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment were correct, NONE of the above sources could even exist. BUT THEY DO EXIST.

MADISON'S SOURCES FOR HIS BILL OF RIGHTS PROVISIONS

In order to further bolster our understanding regarding the founders' intent of the Second Amendment, we can investigate the historical sources upon which James Madison relied for his proposed amendments to the Constitution protecting "private rights", and study what can be determined about intent from those sources.

On August 16, 1789, during the House debate on the amendments, James Madison stated the following:

"I appeal to the gentlemen who have heard the voice of their country, to those who have attended the debates of the State conventions, whether the amendments now proposed are not those most strenuously required by the opponents to the constitution? It was wished that some security should be given for those great and essential rights which they had been taught to believe were in danger. I concurred, in the convention of Virginia, with those gentlemen, so far as to agree to a declaration of those rights which corresponded with my own judgement, and the other alterations which I had the honor to bring forward before the present Congress. I appeal to the gentlemen on this floor who are desirous of amending the constitution, whether these proposed are not compatible with what are required by our constituents?"[OSA 694#2]

This source indicates that Madison's Bill of Rights provisions were intended to fulfill the wishes of those who had opposed the Constitution, the Antifederalists. It was the Antifederalists who had consistently argued for the necessity of a Bill of Rights, starting with George Mason within the Federal Convention, and continuing throughout the ratification controversy from many individuals utilizing pamphlets, broadsides, and newspaper articles. The Origin of the Second Amendment is replete with the demands for a Bill of Rights by the Antifederalists, and it most assuredly does not contain all such references. It was the Antifederalists who had proposed a complete Bill of Rights within the Virginia State Ratifying Convention, which was then adopted unanimously by the Virginia Ratifying Convention, and also by the North Carolina Ratifying Conventions. A similar Bill of Rights was incorporated into the ratification of the New York Convention.

It was these state ratifying convention Bills of Rights, especially that of Virginia, where Madison had been a member and voted for the proposed Bill of Rights, which were the direct sources for his Bill of Rights "private rights" proposals, including protection for the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the well regulated militia concept. Madison possessed copies of the pamphlet printed by Augustine Davis containing all of the ratifications which included proposed amendments, one copy of which Madison sent to Thomas Jefferson.[Papers of Madison, Vol.11, 297 at note 2] Every state ratifying convention which proposed a bill or declaration of rights, or included a bill or declaration of rights in its ratification, contained within that bill of rights a Second Amendment related provision. These included the state conventions of Virginia, New York, and North Carolina. [OSA VA 459#17: NY 481#2: NC 505#17] Note also that New Hampshire's Ratifying Convention proposed this clearly related provision also contained in the pamphlet Madison possessed:

"Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion."[OSA 446#12]

Although not utilizing the same type of language as Virginia, North Carolina, and New York, because it was not based upon the state bills of rights as the other conventions' proposals were, nor part of a stated declaration or bill of rights as the other conventions were, New Hampshire's Ratifying Convention proposal furthers our understanding of how the founding generation understood this right. They obviously viewed it as an individual right.

Second Amendment related proposals were also made but not adopted in the Ratifying Conventions of Pennsylvania [OSA 151#7] and Massachusetts.[OSA 260bottom] The language of both of these proposals has already been addressed above. Madison was assuredly aware of the Pennsylvania Minority proposals, but may not have been aware of Samuel Adams failed attempt at a short Bill of Rights in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention.

The fact is that the ratifying convention proposed Bills of Rights of North Carolina and New York were based upon that of the Virginia Convention. George Mason had sent a copy of the Antifederalist proposals for the Virginia Convention to the New York Antifederalists on June 11, 1788, during the Virginia Convention.[OSA 388-390&444] Thus the New York Antifederalists were well aware of the Virginia Convention Antifederalists' plans. In the case of the North Carolina Convention, which refused to ratify the Constitution until after amendments were adopted, a Bill of Rights identical to that of the previously completed Virginia Convention was adopted by the Convention.[OSA 503-506]

Here follow the State Ratifying Convention proposals related to the Second Amendment. They are presented along with related individual rights provisions in order to emphasize the common usage in such Bills of Rights of the people have a right phraseology.

First, the first written, that of the Virginia Ratifying Convention starting with the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

"That there be a declaration or bill of rights asserting, and securing from encroachment, the essential and unalienable rights of the people, in some such manner as the following:- . . .

15th. That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for the common good, or to instruct their representatives; and that every freeman has a right to petition or apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.
16th. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments; that freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.
17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."[OSA 457,458- 459#15,16&17]

North Carolina's Convention used exactly the same language as the above three proposals from the Virginia Convention.[OSA 505#15,16&17]

What the above sources clearly demonstrate is that the phrase "the people have a right" were references within these proposed Bills of Rights to rights for which each citizen was to be protected against violation by the government. Since BOTH Virginia and North Carolina also proposed an amendment, not part of the proposed Bill of Rights, which assured the power of the states to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining their militia, it is quite evident that the separate Bill of Rights language quoted above was not intended for any similar state authority related purpose.[OSA VA460#11,NC507#11]

The New York Convention contained an extensive declaration of rights as part of its ratification. The predecessor of the Second Amendment and similarly worded provisions were:

"That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienble right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
That standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power. . . . .
That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for their common good, or to instruct their representatives, and that every person has a right to petition or apply to the legislature for redress of grievances."[OSA 481#1,2,3&482#3,Emphasis in original]

The New York propositions are clearly related variants of those the Virginia Antifederalists adopted in the Virginia Ratifying Convention and which had previously been shared with Antifederalist leaders in New York.

In the excerpts from the above three Ratifying Conventions we see standard Ratification Era language, "the people have a right", consistently used in relation to not only the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but also freedom of the press and speech, the right to peaceably assemble, freedom from unreasonable searches, and in relation to freedom of religion. Madison used similar language for the right to speak, write, and publish, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the right to be secured against unreasonable searches and seizures. All of the above are clearly rights exercised by individuals and intended to be protected for individuals. In the State Ratifying Conventions' proposed Bills of Rights, "the people have a right" phraseology was used for NO other purpose.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE STATE BILLS OF RIGHTS

The ratifying convention proposals for a Bill of Rights were based upon state bills of rights. It was a standard view among Antifederalists that the new Federal Constitution should have a Bill of Rights protecting the fundamental rights of the people against violation, just as the state bills of rights protected the fundamental rights of the people against state government violation. The first call for a Bill of Rights for the Federal Constitution came from George Mason within the Federal Convention on Sept. 12, 1787. According to Madison's notes, Mason wished:

"the plan had been prefaced with a bill of rights, and would second a motion, if made for the purpose. It would give great quiet to the people, and, with the aid of the state declarations, a bill might be prepared in a few hours."[OSA 12]

What rights would be protected against violation at the hands of the new Federal Government? Mason's understanding was that it would be the same rights which were protected against violation by the state governments in the state bills of rights. In the view of the Antifederalists whom Madison was attempting to placate, these are the same rights which all governments at all times have attempted to violate in order to increase control over the people,.

Every extant state bill of rights in 1789 (including the Bill of Rights of Vermont, which was not yet recognized as a state) contained a Second Amendment related provision. Seven of the original thirteen states had a bill of rights. Some mentioned a right of the people to bear arms, [PA 754#13: NC 762#17: VT 767#15], one, the right of the people to keep and bear arms [MA 773#17], and the majority a variant of the concept that a well regulated militia was the proper defense of a free state. [OSA VA 748#13: DE 752#18: MD 758#25: NH 778#24]

No state bill of rights contained both a well regulated militia clause and a right of the people to bear arms clause. This indicates both forms of the clearly related language were viewed as expressing a similar basic intent - the people needed to possess and know how to use arms to protect the free form of government they were creating. If this was true, then protection for the people possessing and using arms was needed in the constitutions.

The Virginia State Ratifying Convention proposed Bill of Rights of 1788 is largely a rewrite, by George Mason and some other Virginia Antifederalists, of Mason's previous Virginia State Bill of Rights of 1776, with some Pennsylvania State Bill of Rights (1776) provisions thrown in.[OSA 747-749, 752-755] The "people have a right" provisions of the Virginia Convention were taken from the Pennsylvania State Bill of Rights. This may very well be due to the fact that the Virginia Antifederalists had meetings with and utilized the services of an ardent Pennsylvania Antifederalist, Eleazer Oswald, in communicating their intentions with the New York Antis.[Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IX, p.812] But the Virginia Convention proposal relating to the Second Amendment uses both the Pennsylvania State Bill of Rights "that the people have a right" language and the Virginia State Bill of Rights language describing "a well-regulated militia" concept.

Thus, the Second Amendment, based upon the State Ratifying Conventions Bill of Rights language, is composed of two clauses, each of which is based upon the Second Amendment related language of the state bills of rights. The second, independent clause of the Second Amendment stems from language which first appeared in the Pennsylvania State Bill of Rights of September 28, 1776. This was the third state to adopt a Bill of Rights, the first being Virginia, and the second being Delaware. Pennsylvania's Bill of Rights stated:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"[OSA 754#XIII]

This clause is followed within the Pennsylvania State Bill of Rights by the clauses which originated with George Mason in the Virginia State Bill of Rights of June 12, 1776, prior to the Declaration of Independence. This indicates that Mason's Virginia State Bill of Rights was used as a foundation for other states Bills of Rights. Pennsylvania, while relying on Mason's previous work in many respects, did not have a long history of militia usage similar to the other former colonies due to its Quaker heritage, and therefore did not use a militia reference in its Bill of Rights. North Carolina, Vermont, and Massachusetts followed Pennsylvania's lead in using "right of the people" language for their Bill of Rights provisions regarding bearing arms. Massachusetts' was the first State Bill of Rights to indicate:

"The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence."[OSA 773#17]

The leading dependent clause of the Second Amendment basically repeats an almost standardized state Bill of Rights proposition regarding the militia concept, which first appearing in its longest, most complete form in Mason's Virginia State Bill of Rights of June, 1776:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state"[OSA 748#13]

This language is the original Bill of Rights ancestor of the first clause of the Second Amendment. It is remarkably similar to the terminology of the Second Amendment and its more immediate predecessors. Note that this language, item number 13 from the Virginia State Bill of Rights, along with items 8 through 12 of same, were cited by Patrick Henry in the Virginia Ratifying Convention as an introduction to his discussion of the need for a Federal Bill of Rights similar to that of the Virginia State Bill of Rights.[OSA 434] One of the things Henry had to say about these provisions in light of the new Federal Constitution was:

"You have a bill of rights to defend you against the state government, which is bereaved of all power, and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power!"[OSA 437-438]

Henry, repeating the standard Antifederalists view, was clearly of opinion that these provisions were intended to protect the people of Virginia against violation by the Virginia State Government. The language of the Virginia State Bill of Rights "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state" was viewed as protection for a fundamental right of the people.

This concept was most cogently discussed by one of the leading pseudonymous Antifederalist writers, the Federal Farmer. In his An Additional Number of Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican published in pamphlet form in May of 1788, the Federal Farmer says:

"The following, I think, will be allowed to be unalienable or fundamental rights in the United States:- . . .The militia ought always to be armed and disciplined, and the usual defence of the country"[OSA 343&344]

The above appears among a listing of provisions normally found in a Bill of Rights, although it is not labelled as such. The Federal Farmer in another of the letters in the same pamphlet goes into much more detail about what this concept actually means. Here are excerpts:

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. . . .But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expence, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been , and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them".[OSA 354&355]

Thus, in the eyes of the founding generation, a reference to "a well regulated militia" in a state bill of rights was viewed as protection for the fundamental right of the people to possess their own arms and know how to use them. The militia were understood to be the people. Specially formed, armed and trained military organizations of the government (similar to today's National Guard) were NOT referred to as the militia or a well regulated militia, but rather were referred to as "select militia" or select corps. Such "select militia" were equated with a standing army as a danger to liberty by the Antifederalists who wanted a Bill of Rights to guard the people against governmental tyranny, and who wanted to protect the concept of a real militia of the people - an armed populace - against the destruction of the concept which the new government could bring about in various ways.

Clearly, if disarmed, the people could not function as militia, either to support state or Federal governments, nor to resist unconstitutional and oppressive government when necessary. No one, even today, would refer to a disarmed populace as a well regulated militia. Perhaps as an over regulated militia, or a militia regulated out of existence, but not as a well regulated militia. The concept was that the militia, the people, would be in a situation where they would be able to function as effective militia, in spite of government neglect or dislike of an armed populace.

The state bills of rights were clearly viewed as limitations upon the state government being created. It is also clear that the founding generation viewed a population which possessed arms and knew how to use them as a well regulated militia. This is Revolutionary Era language which our forefathers used to describe themselves at the time they took up arms to resist British oppression and establish new governments. Every one of the original state bills of rights was written during the Revolution, except New Hampshire's, which was adopted the year after the end of the Revolution. Most of the state bills of rights were written during the early years of the Revolution. The language that a well regulated militia is the proper defence of a free state, was standard Bill of Rights language, obviously intended to protect the liberty of the people against possible governmental tyranny by the newly created states.

Returning now to the controversy which sparked this paper, how can state bill of rights language, intended to protect the people against violations of their rights by the State Governments, when transferred into the Federal Bill of Rights along with the rest of the rights protected against violation by the state governments, be construed as intended to protect, NOT THE PEOPLE, as the rest of the rights are construed, but rather to protect powers of the State governments? This is the strange result if one accepts the exclusively collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment - an interpretation which much too conveniently transforms the Second Amendment from the fundamental control on the government by the people which it was clearly intended to be into a much too ambiguous protection for NOTHING.

OTHER SHORTCOMINGS OF THE EXCLUSIVELY COLLECTIVE RIGHTS "THEORY"

In order to arrive at a plausible SOUNDING exclusively collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment, the proponents of this argument have been forced to do many things which are completely unacceptable when studying history to determine facts (although they may be perfectly acceptable to those in the legal profession in advancing arguments on behalf of clients or interested parties in a court of law). Here are a few of them, all of which lead to a fallacious understanding and conclusions:

1 - Ignore an enormous amount of source historical material directly contradicting their views.
2 - Tear the Second Amendment out of its Bill of Rights setting, and interpret it entirely out of context.
3 - Utilize other period sources out of context.
4 - Tear the Second Amendment in half, overemphasizing the first descriptive dependent clause, and dismissing the second independent clause as irrelevant.
5 - Utilize founding generation terminology with meanings never used by the founding generation.
(Militia, well regulated militia)
6 - Substitute modern terminology as if it represented what the founding generation understood by
the Second Amendment. (collective right, state militias, militia membership, join the militia, protection for the National Guard, etc.)

The result of all this has been to create a whole new meaning for the Second Amendment in order to evade its clear intent, and argue for expanded power of the Federal Government in direct violation of this constitutional limitation upon the government.

The period historical sources not only clearly show the intent of the Second Amendment to be protection of a right of individuals, they also just as conclusively show that it was NOT the intent of the Second Amendment to protect any power or authority of the state governments, the recipients of protection in the exclusively collective rights interpretation. These historical sources are also entirely consistent with all other period sources, just as the previously cited historical sources indicating an individual right are.

There were NO comments by ANYONE that any of Madison's proposals, or those in Congress, related to "collective rights", nor that any of them protected the state governments in any way relative to powers given to the U.S. Government by the Constitution, and that includes any specific reference any type of state power over the militia. In fact, the "collective right" terminology so popular today among advocates of government gun control was never used during the Constitutional Era by anyone. Much of the terminology of those espousing an exclusively collective right for the Second Amendment was never used during the period of its formation. Other language never used then, but often used in very recent times in discussing the intent of the Second Amendment, especially by those holding an exclusively collective rights interpretation, include "state militias", "well regulated militias", "militia members", "militia membership", "join the militia", "National Guard", etc.. Our ancestors never used the language in quotes nor discussed any of these things, and it is apparent to anyone who reads the founding era sources utilizing the term "militia" that they understood the militia in a quite different light than almost everyone today. That is one of the reasons for including within The Origin of the Second Amendment so many sources containing militia references from the period - to establish what was normal usage and intent of the term at the time.

There were NO dictionaries of American English usage in the late 1700's. Thus, the writings of the founding generation must be relied upon for the common usage of terms during that period in America. This is another reason for the extensive nature of the collection in The Origin of the Second Amendment - to make sure that ample source documentation of period usage of terms was included, especially of the term militia, as well as placing the constitutional and bill of rights discussions in proper historical context.

For those not wishing to engage in extensive reading, the author highly recommends to anyone interested in a thorough understanding of the types of sources available of the founders' views on who the militia were to at least read the index entries for militia in The Origin of the Second Amendment, where a large number of original source references are condensed. This advice also applies to other period terms found in the Second Amendment, as well as for references to the Bill of Rights (Declaration of Rights) and other period terms of interest.

The hook upon which those espousing an exclusively collective right view of the Second Amendment hang their hat is the extensive discussions about need for authority of the states to be able to organize, arm, and discipline their militia. As noted previously, amendments containing language specifically to that effect were proposed, but never adopted. They also were never parts of Bills of Rights proposals, since they actually relate to powers of the government, not to rights of the people.

There are some other historical documents which indicate there was NO exclusively collective right nature of the Second Amendment and its Bill of Rights predecessors.

One of these is an article examining the various provisions which had been proposed for amendment of the militia powers of the Constitution by the pseudonymous writer, Foreign Spectator, in Remarks on the Amendments. Foreign Spectator lists every one of the proposed amendments specifying a change in the militia powers, including the Virginia and North Carolina structural amendments, the proposal of the Pennsylvania Minority, plus some others unrelated ones. But NONE of the Bill of Rights Second Amendment predecessor provisions are listed as related to or intended to change the militia powers in the Constitution.[OSA 567-568] This directly contradicts the understanding of the exclusively collective rights advocates.

Once again, the founding generation did not interpret the Second Amendment and predecessor Bill of Rights language as related to the militia powers of government or the authority of the states, but rather as related ONLY to private rights to keep and bear arms. The militia consists of the private individuals of our country, not the soldiers of our country. The army and other standing and paid reserve forces consist of the soldiers of our country, and they certainly would not have been considered militia by Antifederalists who framed the language upon which the Second Amendment was based.

Another point, more general in nature, and already alluded to is that the Federalists who controlled Congress in 1789, and who had just transferred a number of powers (some exclusively, some concurrently) from the state governments to the new Federal Government via the Constitution with paramount authority going to Congress, were most certainly not interested in reserving any of those powers to the states, with the exception of powers not given to the Federal Government (protected by the 10th Amendment). To argue that James Madison was trying to protect state control over arming of the militia in his Second Amendment related proposal, or that the Federalist Congress was trying to do so with what became the Second Amendment proper, is clearly absurd to anyone who has studied all of the source materials relating to the Constitution from the Ratification period. There is absolutely NO evidence of any such intent on the part of the Federalists from the period. Additionally, no one advanced such an understanding or opinion relating to the predecessor of the Second Amendment in Congress.

Next, there is no doubt that many Antifederalists wanted a constitutional provision protecting state control over the militia. There is no doubt that concern regarding power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia was discussed extensively in some of the state ratifying conventions - Virginia's for example. What there is very much doubt about is that a Bill of Rights provision in the language of the Second Amendment was proposed and intended to ameliorate that concern. The Second Amendment does not even mention the states, or state powers, or control over the militia. It uses Bill of Rights language, developed from Bill of Rights provisions, and this language originated in the state bills of rights written during the American Revolution. This should lead one to question any suggestion that the Second Amendment was intended to assure control by any level of government of what was being mentioned.

Another point - assuming for the sake of argument that the exclusively collective right view is correct, (something I have great difficulty doing because it is so absurd and inane) - why would James Madison include such a provision, which was supposedly intended to exclude any individual right, among his list of rights, all of which related to individual rights? This would make absolutely no sense. This question is even more telling when one considers how carefully Madison arranged his proposals, and some of the other items, such as Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendment related rights that Madison though related better in other parts of the Constitution, because they obviously related to something else in addition to being individual rights. The logical place for any exclusively collective rights related language regarding the state arming of the militia would have been in Article 1, Section 8, in the clause relating to arming of the militia. The views of the proponents of this view do not add up.

Going further with the sake of argument idea, if the exclusively collective rightists view was correct, what actual power is protected to the states? Was it intended to actually change the power of Congress over the militia? Is state power paramount to Federal power in this instance? We could make a very long list of questions to be answered if the exclusively collective right interpretation actually had any foundation in fact, which it does not. It would seem to be almost impossible to find more ambiguous language than that of the Second Amendment, if one were trying to protect what the exclusively collective rights advocates claim was the intent of the Second Amendment. What possible reason would there be for adopting language which does not say or imply what supposedly is intended? The Second Amendment does not mention the states, the state governments, any authority or right of the states, nor any right of the militia or any requirements for membership in any militia organization.

Considering that several specific proposals, not Bill of Rights proposals, were proposed which specifically authorized the states to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining their militia, the very idea fundamental in the exclusively collective right advocates reading into of the Second Amendment, and considering that none of these proposals was taken to or adopted by Congress, it is obvious that the Second Amendment was not intended to accomplish the exclusively collective rights view, as it is nowhere found in that language, and never understood to be there by the founding generation.

The last point relating to the original historical sources - they are consistent. One does not have to ignore ANY of the historical evidence in order to understand the individual nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. On the contrary, in the case of the exclusively collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment, massive amounts of historical evidence have to be completely ignored, period terms have to be used with meanings entirely at odds with normal period usage in order to arrive at a plausible SOUNDING argument, and new terminology implying government control, which was never used during the period, has to be presented as if it would have meant something then, and everyone then accepted that.

What exactly is it about the exclusively collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment that fascinates and holds its supporters without the least bit of historical evidence to support it? The answer is quite simple. It is their agenda supporting government actions which the Second Amendment forbids. The Second Amendment has to be ignored, swept away, destroyed, or reinterpreted out of existence. The only problem with this approach is the points made by Lincoln. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time (or for a short while), but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

The lack of historical evidence in support, and the extensive historical evidence contradicting the exclusively collective right interpretation, which evidence has been outright ignored and even denigrated for some time, has finally caught up with the supporters of this idea. The farce that a Bill of Rights provision was not intended to prohibit exactly what it says is prohibited should end. Constitutional government cannot survive if the courts will not enforce the clear intent of the Constitution.

A final point. This paper has utilized a number of historical sources directly relating to the Second Amendment. There are numerous other sources which help us even better understand the founders viewpoint. Those who espouse the exclusively collective interpretation, and who I suspect will continue to do so regardless of any historical evidence presented, have no idea of how extensive the material which proves them wrong really is. Since their view is completely unfounded and directly at odds with reality, they have to completely rewrite history in order for their views to make any sense whatever. As an example of this type of rewriting of history, there are those who have suggested that in the colonial and early U.S. period, not many people possessed firearms. This statement is based upon very flimsy historical research, and completely ignores any reasons why such a result may have been reached based upon the particular materials being studied (which were probate records, as I recall).

The entire foundation of the above research concluding that there were few firearms back then is completely refuted by the observations of Benjamin Franklin who wrote about the arms situation in Pennsylvania in 1747. Newspaper articles written by Franklin from 1747 note that practically everyone had some type of firearm and could therefore help protect the community:

"If this now flourishing City, and greatly improving Colony, is destroy'd and ruin'd, it will not be for want of Numbers of Inhabitants able to bear Arms in its defence. 'Tis computed that we have at least (exclusive of Quakers) 60,000 Fighting Men, acquainted with Fire-Arms, many of them Hunters and Marksmen, hardy and bold." Benjamin Franklin, B.F. Papers, vol. III, p.202

How is it possible in 1747 Pennsylvania that 60,000 men could be familiar with firearms if very few had arms? That number of men represents practically the entire adult male population at that time. If someone suggests that it must be due to Militia Laws in which Pennsylvania required the men to have arms for militia purposes, note that Pennsylvania had NO Militia Laws up until this time, and that hunting and marksmanship were specifically mentioned by Franklin in 1747 as reasons why many of the men were aquainted with and able to bear arms to defend the colony.

Franklin proposed a voluntary Association for military preparedness, which became Quaker controlled colonial Pennsylvania's ONLY Militia Law. It was disallowed by the British within a couple years of adoption. In another 1747 newspaper article relating to remarks upon his proposed military Association, Franklin wrote:

"As Use is in our Case more to be regarded than Uniformity, and it would be diffucult so suddenly to procure such a Number of Arms, exactly of the same Kind, the general word Firelock is used (rather than Mustket, which is the Name of a particular kind of Gun) most People having a Firelock of some kind or other already in their hands." Benjamin Franklin, Franklin Papers, vol. III, p. 208

Who is correct about whether the people in the colonies did or did not have many arms? - Benjamin Franklin, who was trying to mobilize the men to defend the colony with their own arms, which almost everyone possessed for hunting and marskmanship according to him? - Or the modern proponents of the exlusively collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, who claim that very few possessed arms back then?

That 'those who fail to understand history are bound to relive' it is an old saying, the truth of which is based upon common sense and understanding. That those who fail to actually study the original historical sources are bound to misinterpret and misrepresent history is a related concept which is well demonstrated by the proponents of the exlusively collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment. All historical sources which contradict them are ignored or explained away by them, and other sources are taken out of context to support their views.

Read the original historical sources. No one has ever regretted having done so.

Thank you,
David E. Young
Editor of The Origin of the Second Amendment