The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Times News Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out
  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Other
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
  • Marketplace
    • Autos
    • Jobs
    • Real Estate
    • Classifieds
    • Shopping
    • Dining Out
    • Education
    • TWT Store
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
    • Joe Giganti
    • Video Game Minute
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Audio and Radio
    • America's Morning News
  • National

    Justices weigh juveniles' life without parole

  • National

    Leadership changes at the Times

  • National

    Hood suspect earlier came under scrutiny

  • National

    PRUDEN: Fatal reluctance to see evil

  • World

    Envoy: Europe relies on U.S. shield

  • National

    'Anti-vaccine' attitude hampers H1N1 effort

  • Business

    Sinking dollar fuels new gold rush

Home » Opinion » Commentary

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

COMMENTARY: The Founders and firearms

Rate this story

Average 0.00
after 0 votes
Login or register to rate this story

  • Font Size -+
  • Print
  • Email
  • Comment
  • Tweet this!
  • Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Click-2-Listen
  • Videos

More Commentary Stories

  • Jihadists in the military
  • The siren call of Shariah
  • International letdown
  • BOOK REVIEW: How apartheid came and went

By Stephen P. Halbrook

Anticipating the Supreme Court's expected late June decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which will decide the constitutionality of a D.C. law restricting gun-ownership rights, many analysts have turned to the Founders' writings in an effort to understand the Second Amendment.

What analysts need to do - recognizing that language and word usage change over time - is turn to America's first dictionary.

The Second Amendment states simply, "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 Supreme Court questioned whether the D.C. statue "violate* the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

For the answer, turn to Noah Webster. Known as the "Father of American Scholarship and Education," Webster believed that popular sovereignty in government must be accompanied by popular usage in language. In "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1806, and "An American Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1828 and adopted by Congress as the American standard, Webster defined all the words in the Second Amendment.

"People" were "the commonality, as distinct from men of rank," and "Right" was "just claim; immunity; privilege." "All men have a right to secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property," he wrote. Thus in the language of Webster's time, "the people" meant individuals and individuals have "rights."

"Keep" was defined as "To hold; to retain one's power or possession; not to lose or part with.... To have in custody for security or preservation"; "Bear" as "to carry" or "to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat"; and "Arms" were defined as "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body."

Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat" - soldiers carried muskets in their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.

Thus the words "keep and bear arms" suggest a right to hand-held arms as a person could "bear," such as muskets, pistols and swords, but not cannon and heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.

"Infringe" was defined by Webster as ". . . to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by nonfulfillment or neglect of performance."

"Militia" was defined as "able-bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers... and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations" and "Regulated" as "subject to rules or restrictions." A well-regulated militia consisted of civilians, not soldiers.

What about the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State?"

"Necessary" was defined as "that must be; that cannot be otherwise; indispensably requisite"; "Security" as "protection; effectual defense or safety from danger of any kind"; and "Free" as "In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord."

"State" was defined as "A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of government." A free state, we must conclude, therefore, encompasses the entire body politic.

During most of our history an exhaustive analysis of the Second Amendment would never have been necessary. The meaning of each word would have been obvious to citizens of the time.

It was only in the late 20th century that an Orwellian view of the Second Amendment gained currency. Within this distorted language prism "the people" would come to mean the states or state-conscripted militia; "right" would mean governmental power; "keep" would no longer entail custody for security or preservation; "bear" would not mean carry; "arms" would not include ordinary handguns and rifles, and "infringe" would not include prohibition.

The Founders worded the Second Amendment in an easy to understand manner. Individuals have a right to have arms in their houses and to carry them for protection, and the government may not violate that right.

Modern contortions of language can't change that meaning because we can still refer to Noah Webster.

Stephen P. Halbrook, a lawyer in Fairfax, Va., and a research fellow at The Independent Institute, Oakland, Calif. (www.independent.org), is the author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms."

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Post a comment

There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!

Please login or register to post a comment

Ask a Question

You Report

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. EXCLUSIVE: Rare virus poses new threat to troops
  2. KELLNER: New Apple mouse really is 'Magic'
  3. Parents buying homes for kids at college
  4. EDITORIAL: Too scared to recognize terrorism
  5. Deer dies after leap into D.C. zoo lion exhibit
More Top Stories »
  1. Court refuses to halt sniper's execution
  2. Federal Reserve opposed as big bank savior by odd allies
  3. House OKs health reform bill
  4. Annandale man killed in hit-and-run
  5. Inside the Beltway

Most Shared

  1. KELLNER: New Apple mouse really is 'Magic'
  2. Deer dies after leap into D.C. zoo lion exhibit
  3. EDITORIAL: Too scared to recognize terrorism
  4. EXCLUSIVE: Rare virus poses new threat to troops
  5. Parents buying homes for kids at college
More Top Stories »
  1. Federal Reserve opposed as big bank savior by odd allies
  2. EDITORIAL: President Obama causes more unemployment
  3. The enemy at home
  4. After the Berlin Wall: German unity proves elusive
  5. Patent case goes to Supreme Court

Most Commented

  1. House OKs health reform bill
  2. EDITORIAL: Too scared to recognize terrorism
  3. Army chief wary of backlash against Muslim soldiers
  4. Health bill faces roadblocks in Senate
  5. EDITORIAL: Mr. Obama, stay away from this wall
More Top Stories »
  1. Lieberman vows probe of Hood rampage
  2. Suspected Fort Hood shooter is awake, talking
  3. Obama: It's Senate's turn on health care
  4. EDITORIAL: President Obama causes more unemployment
  5. The enemy at home

Listen to Washington Times Radio

  • America's Morning News

    with John McCaslin and Melanie Morgan

Question of the day

White House officials and Senate Democrats met in private three times last week to craft health care legislation. Do you think these discussions should be more public?

Blogs & Columns

  • POTUS Notes

    New Dem talking point on Obama approval doesn't wash

  • The Back Story

    12 arrested at Pelosi's office

  • Belief Blog

    New Vatican constitution released

  • Out of Context

    Foods that might kill libido

  • Technology

    Facebook wins round against phishing spammer

  • On the Fly

    United lifts some 'award' blocking

  • Redskins 360

    No interest in Johnson

  • Tara's Two Cents

    On their way to summer vacation..

  • SNOBlog

    Beyond 'Woody'

Videos

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.