Customer Reviews

A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Someone finally gets it! The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights has long been the root of great controversy and debate. One side declares the intent to be that of insuring a well regulated militia with no regard for individual rights. It seems this school of thought would have us believe that "the people" referred to by the framers are not the same as "the people" regarded in several other of the Amendments. The other side stands firm that the Second Amendment squarely and firmly guarantees the right of individuals to arm themselves.

For decades now, the problem has been that, to a degree, both sides are wrong. The Second Amendment, thanks to Patrick Henry and many other anti-federalists, makes the right to bear arms a "civic right" or duty. The anti-federalists rightly feared the liberal rights guaranteed government by the Constitution and sought to protect the citizenry by giving citizens a civic obligation to arm themselves. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA: THE FOUNDING FATHER'S AND THE ORIGIN OF GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA by Saul Cornell, has finally brought the facts to light.

Though they were not victorious, we should give thanks daily for the tremendous influence the anti-federalists had. Their foresight has come to fruition in America. They envisioned the Constitution as giving too much authority to the various branches of government and taking too much away from the individual states. They feared an overpowering judiciary, which quickly came to exist when the Marshall Court far overstepped its' authority in Marbury v. Madison. The states received their biggest blow from a runaway federal government at the conclusion of the Civil War with the advent of the Fourteenth Amendment. These abuses of power are precisely the reason why the Second Amendment exists, though today it is all but nullified.

Cornell's brilliant work here not only restores the Second Amendment to its original meaning, but explains in detail how we arrived at such a convoluted position on guns as we find ourselves today. Sadly, however, Cornell's book amounts to too little too late, as both sides have become powerful forces giving millions of campaign dollars to a corrupt government that isn't about to relinquish the power it has wrestled away from its citizenry. Nonetheless, Cornell's work is brilliant, if not long overdue, and should be read by all Americans interested in Gun rights issues, and more importantly, state's rights issues.

Monty Rainey

The "right" views our second amendment "right to keep and bear arms" as a right of private citizens to own whatever weapons they choose. The "left" sees this right as only valid if used for militia purposes (and, thus, practically obsolete in today's very militia-less US). Historian Saul Cornell has written a book that suggests something of a middle ground: the second amendment, Cornell tells us, was largely borne of a belief that standing armies should be avoided and, therefore, owning arms was necessary as a civic duty to ensure that state militias could exist. Thus, the second amendment did not preclude the government from regulating firearm possession, but only precluded them from disallowing firearm use.

The author goes through history in attempt to prove his thesis. In the aftermath of the American revolution, he notes, there was a palpable fear among the people of the nation having a standing army during peacetime. Militias made up of citizens were the equivalent of an army then, and to ensure that they continue and remain effective, states had an interest in making sure individuals were armed, but also in regulating what those arms could be and could be used for. States could also call on citizens to fight on behalf of the state (a form of conscription).

The author also suggests that the second amendment owes its existence to the anti-federalist writers whose key rationale for a right to bear arms as a fear of the national government obliterating state militias by banning ownership of arms to the common man. Through a variety of court cases, the author suggests, Jeffersonian judges gradually changed the meaning of the amendment into a more individualistic granting of freedom to anyone to possess any weapon for any purpose. What was once seen as a civic duty to bear arms, in other words, now got twisted into an absolute, individual right.

My big problem with this entire thesis is that the author proves very little of it. He certainly DOES show that the amendment was largely shaped by the anti-federalist writers, and that they feared a standing national army. And he DOES point to occasions where states used their militias for state purposes (but also shows just as many instances where militias rose up against the state's purposes).He certainly does not show much evidence that states did much of any regulation of firearms (pointing out the occasional regulation of firearms for purposes of hunting). And maybe I don't recall it (because the author says he will do it), but I don't recall the author giving examples of laws mandating that each able citizen own a firearm.

Lastly, there are many problems reconciling the author's viewpoint with the text of the constitution itself. Ever other amendment in our original Bill of rights was a right against the state, not a proclamation of a civic duty. Our first amendment talk of our right to free speech against state censorship, rather than any civic duty we have to speak. Our third amendment talks of our right not to be forced to quarter soldiers, rather than our civic duty not to quarter soldiers. But somehow, our second amendment - according to the author's thesis - breaks the mold by being the single only amendment that protects a civic duty, rather than an absolute right? I don't get it, and the author does not attempt to address the problem.

Anyhow, the thesis is interesting and there appears to be some thin support for it. But I can't call the author's case anything but really underwhelming.

You would think that before writing a review of a book, "reviewers" would take the time to read it. (See comments by 'A guy in PA')

Cornell notes that he obtained funding from Joyce ... and further thanks the NRA and Brady -- should we not read it cause he therefore must be a shill for the gun lobby?

What impresses me that Cornell seems to have sought the input of everyone who counts in this debate. The result is a thoughtful work of history that challenges some of the mistakes both sides have made. For me, it was an eye-opener to see what the real intended meaning of the 2nd amendment was.

I suggest you read this book and judge for yourself -- something some reviewers seem not have bothered to do!

The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A straight forward enough statement that this book shows has been interpreted in ways that are far from what its original drafters intended. When the amendment was written, the drafters distinguished between the concept of common defense and the concept of self-defense, as established in English Common Law. The amendment was originally written to prevent the newly created federal government from disarming the state militias that were considered the first line of defense against foreign invasions, civil disorder, and usurpation of power by the federal government. At the time, "well regulated militia" meant organized citizen soldiers trained and equipped to provide a common defense. The rights to self-defense and the weapons necessary to that type of defense were left to the discretion of the states. As this book explains with admirable clarity, and using actual case studies, this distinction between common and self-defense has gradually been lost as the U.S. itself has changed over the last two hundred years. Anyone wishing a real understanding of the second amendment and the many unresolved conflicts that it has generated would do well to read this book.

Interestingly, in a recent decision, the court of appeals for the district of columbia reviewed and analyzed in large part the same history and background that Cornell uses, and came up with the conclusion that the Second Amendment unequivocally protects the individual's right to keep and bear arms. The court's opinion was based largely on and consistent with a number of liberal jurists that have come to agree with the 'individual rights' principle. In addition, use of basic legal constructs can come only to the same conclusion-- the 'militia' clause is prefatory, not operative. The 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' is operative, and therefore controlling. The operative clause speaks of a "right", a right being bestowed by the Creator, of the "people", who are individuals (as they are in the first amendment where the "people" is used), and the right is to KEEP, not just BEAR, arms. "Regulated" in colonial times meant "functional", not controlled by the goverment in a heavy handed way. Additionally, the prefatory "militia" clause is not directed at the security of "the State", but the security of " A FREE state"-- the state of freedom, the condition of freedom-- this is consistent with the Framer's view that a people have the right to overthrow a government that exercises tyranny over its citizens, and that an armed population was an important check against over-expansive governmental power. The court further pointed out that if the Framers, who were intelligent men who knew how the draft, merely intended to protect the States' power to have a militia, they would have written 'The States shall have the right to maintain militias", period.

Unlike Cornell, liberal jurists Laurence Tribe, Akhil Reed Amar and Sanford Levinson are independent researchers who came to their conclusions through unbiased research and legal analysis. As a grantee of the Joyce Foundation, Cornell framed his analysis according to his grantor's agenda. He knows where his bread is buttered.

Do yourself a favor and get a hold of "The Second Amendment Primer". The principle of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is really not as complicated as Cornell would like to make it seem.The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizen's Guidebook to the History, Sources, and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.The Slaves Shall Serve: Meditations on Liberty

The scholarly writing our author presents begins with the modern academic/political thesis that the needs of government may override the needs of the citizen. Dr. Cornell conflicts DIRECTLY with President George Washington, whose opinion I prefer to go with. Washington insisted that the common man deserved access to lethal weapons for the expressed purpose of protecting himself and his neighbors from the national government. The cause of freedom suffers when government begins to tinker with what access to weapons it allows citizens to have.

The sort of weaponry that appears to frighten Dr. Cornell - and those liberal thinkers who lined up to praise his position - will be difficult enough for untrained persons to maintain. The various assault rifles, for example, do not suffer neglect or abuse nearly as well as the simpler pistols and long arms that Americans have owned for years. The overly militaristic weapons tend also to be more expensive, heavier and bulkier, a fact that is never allowed to enter into the political rationales for a central-government-friendly reading of the second amendment.

The most obvious clue towards understanding the posture of the progressive/academic community towards gun rights is their response towards advocate groups like the NRA. Rarely do we ever see a readiness to debate this issue with such groups by the people Dr. Cornell represents. If it weren't obvious from a reading of history that every time despots have taken control of societies that their first aim is to disarm their intended victims, the gun rights community wouldn't be so predictably aligned weith President Washington's position (above.) Americans have a habit of identifying things that would cut into their liberty, and denial of access to firearms always turns out to be a central point of contention. This philosophical delimitation places Dr. Cornells' book firmly on one side of this ancient issue, and the reader does well to remember this.

In "A Well Regulated Militia" Saul Cornell gives an excellent history of the second amendment from the days of the founding fathers, early days of the United States, the Civil War and after, and the gradual development of the gun control and gun rights factions. Gun control folks focus on the first part of the Second Amendment; gun rights folks on the second part. Cornell explains how the courts have applied the Second and Fourteenth Amendments using a principle of ruling as narrowly as possible. The weak part of the book is the final chapter "Conclusion". One would like to think that the conclusion follows from the preceding chapters, but Cornell just sort of throws in his thoughts for a solution. But the answer rests not merely from history, but from an understanding of the current sociology of the country, from an analysis of crime in American, and from a comparison with other nations that have chosen a different path in gun control. The conclusion aside, it is a book well worth reading.

While I will not dispute the historical facts that Cornell discusses in his book, he clearly decides to ignore many other historical facts that go against his predetermined position. For example, he cites to statements from Tench Coxe (one of our Founding Fathers), but omits his most telling quote: "The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Towards the end of his book, he completely misinterprets several court cases, attributing rulings to them that are not made, and ignores many other cases that tend to support an indiviudal right to keep and bear arms. While the book is easy to understand, it was clearly written with an agenda, not as a balanced piece to try to logically determine the truth. Those who do not know all of the facts will be grossly misled by this book, as it sounds plausable and complete on its face. However, the absence of much relevant information does not serve those who are looking for the actual truth on this issue.

In the latest Fordham University newsletter, the author was asked:

"...your research has brought you into the national debates on gun control. How would you sum up your views on that issue?"

He reply was:

"I consider myself a moderate. Any solution to the gun issue must acknowledge gun ownership but also the necessity of effective regulation. In personal terms, the way I like to view it is that ideally, in a civilized society, there would be more bagel stores than gun shops."


Hhhhmmm...that doesn't quite sound like a moderate, to me, anyway. WHY would there be less gun shops than bagel stores in a civilized society, as he puts it?? Does gun ownership, in his view, equate to being less civilized?? I can draw no other conclusion than this, from his reply.

And WHO decides that there are less gun shops?? Free markets driven by consumers with choices, or THE GOVERNMENT, through "necessary effective regulation"?? If the latter then that doesn't sound quite like freedom to me. And isn't the bill of rights all about freedoms??

His personal views sound oh so innocent and moderate on the surface, but when you start digging a little deeper I believe they may raise some concerns that would give any true defender of the 2nd amendment pause.

I have not spoken to the author personally about this yet to ain a deeper understanding and see if my concerns are merited, but I do intend to do so. Or perhaps if he sees this review then he can reply directly and elaborate, if he chooses to do so.

Readers of this work should be aware that Saul Cornell's "Second Amendment Research Center" is funded by the Joyce Foundation.

The Joyce Foundation is NOT a neutral party to the 2nd amendment "debate", having strategically funded millions of dollars towards a number of anti gun causes and initiatives.

Caveat Emptor.