by Gary Betts

Created on: April 23, 2008   Last Updated: July 18, 2011

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of a package of ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights, ratified by the states by December 15, 1791. The Second Amendment simply reads, "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."

The Second Amendment is one of the most confusing of all the Amendments as scholars and lawyers today try to understand what the Framers in 1791 had in mind. To better understand this Amendment, some key words must be put in the spotlight alone.

Militia in 1791 is the easiest to understand. It was the military army that each state had for protection from within and without. That would be the National Guard in today's terms. In 1965 and 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "A well regulated Militia..." referred to the Nation Guard today.

The rest is not so clear cut, such as the clause, "...to keep and bear Arms..." Bear Arms in 1791 refers to military service. This takes on creditability when the previous clause refers to a well regulated militia. And like today's National Guard, the people in the 1791 militia would only be part-time. To keep, refers to one of two things - to upkeep the weapons or to have personal retention. In the militia, as in today's National Guard, the weapons were probably left at a central depot under guard. In this case, the weapons would have to be periodically checked and cleaned to be in proper working order.

Therefore, "...to keep and bear Arms..." refers to members of the 1791 militias to have the right to take up arms in defense of their individual state. And these part-time members were also instructed to the upkeep of these weapons. But this did not give them the right to bring these weapons home.

The clause, "...shall not be infringed." probably refers to laws that could prevent the arming of militias by future federal or state authorities. But the fact that to keep and bear arms cannot be banned, it could maybe be regulated.

The courts in the past have often spent time debating "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...", while ignoring the militia clause. This cannot be done. When trying to understand what they meant in 1791, the entire Second Amendment must be collectively and equally taken into consideration. One part such as the militia clause cannot be ignored. Another part such as to keep and bear arms cannot be given more weight.

The men who wrote this clause and eventually ratified it in 1791 were writing in 1791 terms. There are four clauses, all separated by commas. This shows that they wanted all the clauses to be read and interpreted as one idea. That idea was that the members of militias had the right to bear arms in the security of their individual state, the right to upkeep these weapons, and this right shall not be prohibited by law.

If one takes the entire Second Amendment as a continuous idea from 1791, there is nothing in it that gives American civilians the right to bear arms outside of the military. I think today's states and courts have lost sight of what the Founding Fathers had in mind when the Second Amendment was ratified. They didn't want to guarantee the right of the masses to have guns, but only to guarantee armed militias for the security of each state.

Learn more about this author, Gary Betts.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.