The DC Circuit Court has issued
an
historical opinion regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
The relevant portion is this:
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an
individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the
formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised
on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and
self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either
private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a
threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had
the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for
the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate
their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated
militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from
keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty.
Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however,
the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an
individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued
or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
I found its discussion of the role of the militia in the early
American republic to be highly interesting. As many know, the
Founders were highly suspicious of the idea of a standing army (hence
the Constitutional provision that Army spending bills be two years in
length, with no such restriction on Naval bills), and much preferred
the idea of a citizen. To that end,
the Militia
Act of 1792 made several provisions.
The first was that each and every free able-bodied white male
citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be
of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except
as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be
enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the
company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside.
In modern
terms, this would mean that every single male citizen aged 18–45
would be part of the militia (with a few exceptions). This is actually
the case under our current laws: I am, technically, a member of the
militia.
The second provision of interest is that every member of the militia
was required to provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a
sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a
pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four
cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each
cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a
good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited
to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of power.
This
meant that almost every male citizen from 18–45 had
a legal duty to own a weapon and the basic equipment
needed for military service. Officers (who were wealthy volunteers)
had to additionally purchase a sword or hanger (another sort of sword)
and an espontoon (a type of short spear carried as a symbol of rank).
After the militia was divided up into units, artillery officers had to
add a fusee (a type of slowmatch) and a cartridge box with twelve
artillery cartridges; cavalry privates each had to provide a horse, a
sword, a pair of pistols and holsters with bearskin caps; a dragoon
had to provide a horse, saddle, bridle, a mail-pillion & valise,
holster, breastplate, crupper (used to keep the saddle on), a pair of
boots, spurs, a pair of pistols, a sabre and a cartidge box with
twelve pistol cartridges (obviously dragoons had a fair amount of
money!).
Imagine if we still had this system today, with almost every male
citizen owning a basic military kit, and those who wanted to serve in
fancier units providing more (and the federal government providing
those items too expensive for private ownership, such as tanks or
armoured vehicles), and of course with a cadre of professional
soldiers to serve as the backbone of the service. Instead of having
city and state police, the state militias could provide police
services. Instead of a huge standing army, we could get by with a
much smaller force.
Some might argue that this system couldn’t possibly work. Yet
it’s not all that different from the Swiss system—a system
which kept Hitler’s Wehrmacht at bay. It’s an idea,
anyway, and one which certainly have some salutary effects on our body
politic.
