"In Search of the Second Amendment"

A documentary…by David T. Hardy

I ordered my copy on the seventh. It is now the tenth and I just finished watching it.

Now that’s responsive customer service. Some national corporations could take lessons from Mr. Hardy.

This is the most comprehensive look at the Second Amendment, from its foundations, to its attempted undermining to its application to today’s society, that I’ve ever seen. It encompassed all of the elements that one must generally scour several sources to find and it was all available in one convenient and entertaining package.

Many of the reknowned scholors who’s work I’ve long admired and respected were represented and the points were made clearly, eloquently and convincingly.

In order to prevent anyone from approaching it with unrealistic expectations I would point out that it is not a $100 million hollywood production. But given the limitations of Mr. Hardy’s resources, it is extremely well done. I give it my unreserved and wholehearted endorsement.

I’m planning to donate this copy to the Norfolk Public Library but I’m going to order another copy for myself. It is an invaluable resource to keep in the reference library.

Outstanding work Mr. Hardy! And thank you.

Share

2 thoughts on “"In Search of the Second Amendment"

  1. Justice Amy Coney Barrett Second Amendment dilemma

    In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers, or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing  Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.

    I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “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.”

    Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.

    If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)

    The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”

    The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.

    It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”

    The President was elected on 13 of these references. Of which 11 are Amendments, conditioning a “person,” unlike the Second Amendment, to the role of the President of the United States.

    Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero references to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
     
    Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.

    In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references, there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.

    Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..

    And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”

    “[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;

    The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any thoughts counter regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall not infringe or encroach on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.” Article 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, …”

    Clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”
    People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.

    Finally, another reason and need for…. “A well regulated militia, …” exactly, because we fight among ourselves.

    In closing, I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.

    William Heino Sr.

    • I’m not getting your conclusion here. You dissect the meaning of individual words out of context but then fail to put them back together to explain what you conclude the final meaning of the amendment is.

      The first phrase of the amendment is a prefatory phrase. It is a statement of one (likely the preeminent one in the eyes of the founders, but still only one) of the purposes of the clause that follows…the operative clause.

      The Operative clause is not dependent upon the prefatory clause in any way. It is a clear, distinct instruction that the protected right shall not be infringed.

      What is the right? The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Yes, I agree that “the people” is a collective term, but collections are made up of individual members. In this case, the members of the collective “people” are individual persons.

      If the founders intended to say that only members of the militia enjoy the protections of the amendment, they could have easily said so…they didn’t. The premise that the right only protects the militia is dependent upon the suggestion that only militia members are people. I’d say that’s obviously a gross misinterpretation so that can’t be what your arguing here.

      Is your point that the amendment protects the rights of the collective “people” which includes everyone, but individual person’s rights may be infringed at will? This defies logic and violates the concept of “equal protection under the law”.

      What is the point of a prohibition against infringing the rights of “the people” as a whole, while abandoning any individual person who makes up that whole on a whim? And what would that even look like?

      I find your argument unpersuasive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.