A Well-Regulated Militia, Essay Example

In her book on the grassroots gun control movement that is currently forming in America Kristin Goss talks about how the firearms death rate in the US United States is substantially higher than that of other industrially advanced nations. She notes that, “the rate at which Americans were killed by guns in 1997 (a relatively peaceful year in the United States) was thirty-four times the rate of gunshot deaths in the United Kingdom, and more than three times the rate in Norway or Australia”  (Goss, 6). Much of this ties into a gun culture that has existed in American history that was formed out of the militia and debates on constitutional law but evolved into something much different. The following will take a deeper look at gun control, gun ownership, and the arguments and policies that formed around it to mold American gun culture into what it has become today.

Explain idea of gun ownership as a civic obligation

Gun ownership as a civic obligation was so based on a state citizen’s obligation to bear arms and own a gun as a participant of the militia. The purpose of the militia was to protect and guard state citizens. Cornell is keen to point out that gun ownership, while it was a civic obligation, common law was flexible in regards to context of determining what would be a violation of this obligation and extend into a need for disarmament of the individual or individuals. The author notes that “A party of men hunting in season in Pennsylvania would not under most circumstances have been viewed as committing an affray, while an armed assembly riding into town might well be viewed as such and could be legally disarmed by a justice of the peace” (Cornell, p.30). The author points out that the militia law, before it was utilized as a form of rebellion against the federal government or a tool to defend state rights and power against tyranny, it was a form of taxation, making citizens responsible for the costs of public defense. As such, members of the militia had a civic obligation to bear arms. This militia law resulted in a debate about constitutional law and the power difference between the state and federal government which lead to many significant rebellions.

Which rebellions were an important part of the militia debate and why?

Shays’s Rebellion is recognized as the largest uprising to occur during the development of the new nation. It became the first test of the militia as a resource to stand against the federal government in exercising the right to bear arms in a post-Revolutionary America (Cornell,  33). Shays’s rebellion revealed conflict in American constitutional theory that would become a central point for debate between Federalist and Anti-federalist. The question was over whether or not the militia was an agent of government authority, or whether it was a popular institution that could check the government on key issues. Cornell notes that, “the notion that the militia might effectively nullify an unjust law by refusing to enforce it, or in extreme situations actually take up arms against the government, were two of the most radical ideas to emerge out of the intellectual ferment of the Revolutionary era” (Cornell, 34). Shays’s Rebellion put both of these concepts into practice. Another rebellion that played significant impact in the militia debate was the Whiskey Rebellion. Changes brought on by the adoption of the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights was viewed by revolutionaries under the Whiskey rebellion as minimal changes that barely improved conditions from colonial times. Just like in the case of Shays Rebellion, the Whiskey rebellion utilized the rhetoric of the militia and the laws relating to it within the Constitution to add legitimacy to their actions. The main debate that really formed out of the Constitution, or the opposing sides that had formed from rebellions like these was the contrast between the Federalist and Anti-federalists, and gun ownership naturally progressed to become the key issue of their debate.

Explain the debate over gun ownership, particularly between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. What did each side believe and why?

Cornell attributes the emergence of the second amendment, the right of an individual to bear arms, to what he calls the divisive struggles that happened between Anti-Federalist and federalists over the drafting of the Constitution. On the surface, while this may have seemed like a simple debate over gun ownership, Cornell reveals that it was really a conflict over state’s rights verses national power. The Anti-Federalist were opposed to large government while the Federalist believed in a strong and powerful national governing body. When compromises were finally met on the 2nd Amendment, it was due to the fact that the Anti-Federalist believed  the second Amendment provided a way for states to check federal power. Cornell states  that, “while the language of the provision on arms bearing that Congress drafted, which eventually became the Second Amendment, was closer in spirit to the civic model embodied in the first state constitutions, Anti-Federalists and their Jeffersonian heirs came to interpret the Second Amendment within an evolving theory of states’ rights” (Cornell, 5). He further notes that when the Amendment was first passed, the Ant-Federalists, who would eventually evolve into the Jeffersonians, understood the law to provide militia with the right to bear arms and physically defend state rights against the federal government in cases where federal government power might be abused.  The real issue the Anti-federalists were concerned with was the potential threat  posed by standing armies.

What were the arguments for and against standing armies?

The main argument against standing armies is that they pose a threat to state and individual rights as they can be abused. Those who opposed standing armies, favored the use of militia as a more natural way to defend the rights of free states. Cornell notes that the Second Amendment was drafted and ratified primarily due to the fear Americans had of standing armies. He credits their fear to the fact that the federal government systematically disarmed state militias through policies. Many states felt that the use of a standing army would make the Constitution a threat to liberty.

The main argument in favor of standing armies often expressed by the Federalist to counter Anti-Federalist sentiments, was that there is nothing to fear in a standing army since the militia would remain intact. Federalist, specifically the famous Federalist Publius, further argued that unless a militia was actually elite and  well regulated it could not provide citizens with the needed protection against tyranny that Anti-federalist argued was the need to keep militia intact. Publius further argued that the last defense against tyranny would be citizen having the right to bear arms for self defense. He presented this argument to reaffirm why Americans did not have to fear a standing army and there was no need for a ban of standing armies in the Constitution. Despite the argument by Publius, as the years passed gun culture in the United States drastically changed partly in response to the gun control movement.

How and why did the gun culture change in the United States in the early decades of the 19^th century? Explain the first gun control movement and its results

The author notes that society after the War of 1812 was one where gun culture became more individualized and this transition in the 19^th century resulted in drastic changes in gun control culture and legislation ideology. The author notes that “a profound change in the nature of American gun culture occurred in the early decades of the new century. Americans began sporting weapons designed primarily for personal self-defense. The expanding economy of the new century made a staggering array of these personal weapons readily available to consumers” (Cornell, 137). The author refers to many statements by acclaimed philosopher Tocqueville, who  pointed out America brought on a new era of individualism, which ushered in transitions in legal thinking towards the right to bear arms, the relevance of the militia and the basis of this new thinking on the concept of self-defense. A new common practice among many Americans was to travel armed with a concealed weapon.  The motivation behind this new trend of individuals carrying hang guns and other personal weapons was for use in quarrels between other free men, or protection against salves. The author argues that the first gun control movement started a a legislative response to an increase in interpersonal violence as a result of wide-spread hand gun use, but it actually resulted in the emergence of people being self-conscious about their gun rights and the right to bear arms for the use of self defense. As states started to pass more regulations criminalizing the use of concealed weapons between 1813 and 1859, more and more people began writing Congress protesting that their right to bear arms in self defense was being violated. In 1819, Mississippi legislators took the opposite route and actually passed a legislation acknowledging the right of individuals to bear arms. Their legislation served as a model for other states to adopt. Abolitionists against slavery also played a major role in the gun control debate.

How did slavery and abolition contribute to the ongoing gun control debates in the early 19^th century?

The start of the fight against slavery was driven by sentiments of ant-violence and peace, but by the 1840’s abolitionists had adopted the ideology of the second amendment and the right to bear arms in self defense but also in supplementing revolutionary efforts to fight against slavery. It was argued that even slaves had the right to keep and bear arms for self defense. It was argued that a person only need convince a jury that their killing of an individual was in the act of self defense and their actions would be vindicated. Abolitionists applied this argument to instances where a slave attempting to escape bondage might kill an individual attempting to recapture them and return them to slavery. They argued that the slave should have the right to bear arms in this instance to defend themselves in resistance to an unjust law. In this way, the debate on gun control was further progressed by the slavery debate and the abolitionist movement.

Conclusions  

In sum, the militia played a significant role in American history specifically in regards to establishing policy related to gun control as well as constitutional law regulating the relationship between the state and federal government. If not for many of the hurdles overcome by militia as well as abolitionists in the political arena on gun usage, the current policies on gun control might be very different. The debate between the federalists and ant-federalists can still be seen today. While the titles have changed from conservative and liberal to Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian, they still hold on to many of the same positions about issues related to gun control and the rights of individuals to protect themselves against tyranny.  Gun culture is still steadily changing in response to legislative changes and the reaction of the American people.

Work Cited

Cornell, Saul. A well-regulated militia: the founding fathers and the origins of gun control in America. Oxford University Press, 2006.

Goss, Kristin A. Disarmed: The missing movement for gun control in America. Princeton University Press, 2010.