Toward a New Second Amendment

No other part of our sacred Bill of Rights creates as much discord as does the Second Amendment.  We all know what the Second Amendment is, but let me repeat it here for your examination:

               “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.”

Original Intenters know that in 1787, at the time Madison drafted the “Bill of Rights”, there was widespread distrust of and a universal desire to be free of standing armies, which the British had used to dominate and subjugate the Colonies.  The Founding Fathers could not come to consensus and avoided the question.  Hamilton, writing as Publius in Federalist Paper #24, thought it nuts that the Constitution addressed neither the need for nor the prohibition of a national defense force.

After many state delegations had voiced concern that individual rights were omitted from the Constitution, and that amendments were called for, Madison drew on Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, one of which addressed "the proper, natural, and safe defence (sic) of a free state" and said that it rested in a well-regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, and that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty.  There were dangers lurking out there, especially on the western and southern borders – British raiders from Ontario and French from Quebec, Spanish from Florida, hostile Indian tribes and nations – and in order to assure a responsive militia some armed citizens needed to be on call.  Keeping and bearing arms was a necessary right for the security of the community.  The original intent was clear: to assure and maintain a well-regulated militia. 

Just four years later, in Washington’s first term, it had become clear to him and to Congress that a standing army was desirable. The “Legion of the United States”, a nod to sensitivity about “Army”, was formed.  Later that same year, that silly name was changed to "the United States Army."  The need for having armed citizens on call began to be diminished and has steadily ever since.

Literalist interpreters of the Constitution set aside that conditional first phrase – “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” and those pesky 18^th C commas – and focused only on the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  The Literalists are the ones that got us here.

Times have changed since 1787 and 1791 – Duh.  Then, the cost of a musket or rifle was about the annual income or surplus of a typical farmer or settler; today it’s a mere fraction of one’s income.  The Economist estimated that in 1850, only 10% of adults owned firearms.  Today, despite urbanization which depresses gun ownership, it’s 30% in total and 44% in rural areas.  300 plus million guns are out there circulating among we 250 million adults.  And controversy over regulation, prohibition, military style arms, sale and transfer of ownership just becomes more heated, more ideological, more intolerant and uncompromising.

Can’t this Gordian knot be cut?  Is it not time for a new Second Amendment? 

Principles? 

1. Citizen control: what works for Washington, DC may be overly restrictive for Wisconsin; what works for Montana may not work for Seattle.  
2. Realism: like it or not (and I do not), arms are part of our history and culture; common-sense regulation should be our end, not prohibition.

 So, try this on for size:

Well-regulated civil and military services are necessary to the security of United States Citizens.  Each individual State’s right to regulate its civilian citizens’ acquisition, use, and sale of firearms shall not be infringed.

Is this palatable?  To the NRA and its arms dealers from whom most of its funding flows?  No.  To state’s rights conservatives? Yes.  To Liberals?  Yes.  To urbanites and rural dwellers, to hunters and sportsmen?  Probably.  To criminals?  No, with a shrug, given 300 million firearms accessible one way or another.  But is this pragmatic approach feasible and sensible?  Perhaps so.

If you like this approach to a new Second Amendment, copy this and share it about on Facebook, Twitter, and with your legislators, both State and Federal.  If you can improve it, do so!  Let’s opt for common sense and find a better answer than endlessly arguing over how to apply an 18^th C concept to our 21^st C reality.