An Examination of Arguments Against Interpreting the Second Amendment as an Individual Right
There are no legitimate arguments against interpreting the Second Amendment as an individual right. The language used in the amendment and the federal records at the time of its drafting are both clear and explicit.
Why the Individual Right is Clear and Explicit
Firstly, the term “infringed” is never used in legal documents regarding individual rights. If the founders had intended to confer individual rights to the Second Amendment, they would have employed the term “abridged” as they did with other amendments. However, this is not the case, and a congressman who suggested substituting “abridged” for “infringed” in the bill explicitly rejected this suggestion because they were not concerned with individual rights.
Historical Context and Linguistic Analysis
Another factor that does not support the notion of collective rights is the 18th-century understanding of the phrase “to bear arms.” In 18th-century English, "to bear arms" was not synonymous with simply owning or possessing firearms. This phrase specifically referred to engaging in military service. A man with a musket fighting or marching off to war was indeed bearing arms. However, the same person using the same musket to hunt or defend themselves from a thief was not considered to be bearing arms in that collective context. In fact, the very term "bear arms" did not include simple ownership or possession of firearms until 1962.
The Federalist Papers and Judicial Precedents
Since the early days of the United States, every relevant federal Supreme Court decision prior to 2008 ruled that the Second Amendment served the purpose of ensuring that the federal government could not interfere with the state militias. These militias once served as the backbone of our defense system and the Anti-Federalist faction was concerned that the federal government might deliberately weaken a particular state’s defense capabilities. Ratifying the Second Amendment was a measure to balance military power, not to grant individual rights to firearms.
Historical Evidence of Legal Contradictions
A key point to consider is that many of the individuals who wrote, ratified, or enforced laws in their capacity as state representatives also enacted laws that are widely considered to infringe upon the individual right to bear arms. For example, registration laws, concealed carry laws, and outright bans on firearms have been a part of the legal system since the founding of the United States. Despite these laws, it took more than two centuries for legal arguments based on the Second Amendment to gain traction in the courts.
Conclusion and Final Considerations
Even if the right to self-defense did not exist by itself, the Second Amendment must still be interpreted as preventing the federal government from general public disarmament. Individual access to firearms for self-defense and public safety is a necessary requirement. However, this reasonable access does not preclude reasonable regulation and does not automatically mean that no regulation is possible.
Therefore, it is imperative to understand that the language and context of the Second Amendment unequivocally support an individual right to bear arms, not a collective one.