Citation

Cornell S. Law Hist. Rev. 2004; 22(1): 161-167.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, American Society for Legal History, Publisher Cornell Law School)

DOI

10.2307/4141668

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Discussions about the meaning of the Second Amendment have become mired in an intellectual quagmire. Contemporary debate over this provision of the Bill of Rights have been cast in terms of a simple dichotomy: either the Second Amendment protects an expansive individual right similar in nature to freedom of the press or it protects a narrow right of the states to maintain their well-regulated militias.1 Partisans of the individual rights view argue that the Second Amendment was designed to affirm a basic individual right to own firearms for hunting, recreation, and personal protection. The other view of the Amendment, often described as the collective rights view, argues that amendment is about the allocation of military power in the federal system. According to this view, the Second Amendment was a modest concession to moderate Anti-Federalists who feared the power of the new federal government. By affirming that the right of the people to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia, Federalists were able to assuage lingering Anti-Federalist qualms about the future of the state militias. Framing the meaning of the Second Amendment in terms of such simple dichotomy fits well with the politics of the modern gun control debate. The individual rights view serves the interests of gun rights advocates, while the collective rights view fits well with supporters of gun control. While this neat dichotomy may have served the interests of those involved in modern political debates about gun policy, it is not particularly useful for understanding the eighteenth century world in which the Second Amendment was drafted and adopted.

Language: en