03-04-2018, 03:05 AM
"[Today] both sides in the modern Second Amendment debate recognize that Madison proposed, and the Federalist First Congress passed, the Bill of Rights in response to Anti-federalist criticism of the Constitution. Unlike the individual right view [the view of those who believe the Second Amendment protects an "individual" right to keep and bear arms], however, the states’ right view presupposes the Amendment’s hostility to parts of the Constitution to which the Anti-federalists were deeply opposed. The Anti-federalists had opposed ratification of the Constitution on two very different kinds of grounds. One involved deep suspicion about specific provisions, particularly those allowing a standing army and providing for federal supervision of the militia. Entirely independent of those specifics, the Anti-federalists, and many other Americans, were critical of the failure to append to the Constitution a charter of basic human rights that the federal government could not infringe under any circumstances.
"The individual right view sees the Second Amendment, and the Bill of Rights in general, as responding to this second kind of criticism. During the ratification debate, the Federalists vehemently denied that the federal government would have the power to infringe freedom of expression, religion, and other basic rights – expressly including the right to arms. In this context, Madison secured ratification by his commitment to support the addition by amendment of a charter that would guarantee basic rights. But that commitment extended only to safeguarding the fundamental rights that all agreed should never be infringed. It did not involve conceding any issue on which the Federalists and Anti-federalists disagreed, i.e., the latters’ opposition to specific provisions of the Constitution. Indeed, a few days after their submission, Madison said that he had ‘deliberately proposed amendments that would not detract from federal powers, among them a right for the citizenry to be armed.’
"The Second Amendment, then, was a response to the perceived lack of individual rights guarantees, not, as states' right proponents contend, a reaction to the standing army and militia control provisions of [the original Constitution]. The latter source of Anti-federalist wrath was simply not addressed by the Second Amendment. Nothing on the face of the Amendment deals with [those] concerns; certainly Madison did not see it as changing those portions of the Constitution. The Anti-federalists were not placated by the Amendment; when the proposed Bill of Rights reached the Senate, they unsuccessfully attempted to amend or repeal the offending clauses of [the original Constitution]."
"The individual right view sees the Second Amendment, and the Bill of Rights in general, as responding to this second kind of criticism. During the ratification debate, the Federalists vehemently denied that the federal government would have the power to infringe freedom of expression, religion, and other basic rights – expressly including the right to arms. In this context, Madison secured ratification by his commitment to support the addition by amendment of a charter that would guarantee basic rights. But that commitment extended only to safeguarding the fundamental rights that all agreed should never be infringed. It did not involve conceding any issue on which the Federalists and Anti-federalists disagreed, i.e., the latters’ opposition to specific provisions of the Constitution. Indeed, a few days after their submission, Madison said that he had ‘deliberately proposed amendments that would not detract from federal powers, among them a right for the citizenry to be armed.’
"The Second Amendment, then, was a response to the perceived lack of individual rights guarantees, not, as states' right proponents contend, a reaction to the standing army and militia control provisions of [the original Constitution]. The latter source of Anti-federalist wrath was simply not addressed by the Second Amendment. Nothing on the face of the Amendment deals with [those] concerns; certainly Madison did not see it as changing those portions of the Constitution. The Anti-federalists were not placated by the Amendment; when the proposed Bill of Rights reached the Senate, they unsuccessfully attempted to amend or repeal the offending clauses of [the original Constitution]."