There are many widespread myths and misconceptions around not just the 2nd Amendment, but the Bill of Rights in general. To truly understand the 2nd Amendment, you need to understand why the Bill of Rights was ratified. You also need to understand the arguments against it. Against? Yes, contrary to popular history and education, our founding documents were not universally agreed upon.
The modern left argues that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the weapons of the time. The founders owned muskets and cannons and could not predict semi-automatic machine guns. These were also only intended for hunting, or for active war. Some on today’s right will argue that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited, and all weapons regulation is unconstitutional. Who is correct? Based on the 2nd Amendment as ratified, they’re both wrong. The 2nd Amendment in full:
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.
Without a true understanding of the Bill of Rights, that probably doesn’t clarify things. Context for the timeframe prior to the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is needed. The 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended the American War for Independence, applied to each state. Per Article 1 of the treaty:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
The term “United States” is used for brevity. The United States as we recognize it today did not yet exist in 1783. Virginia was a state in the same way that France was a state. Delaware was a state in the same way Great Britain was a state. Each state had its own constitution. When the United States Constitution was ratified years later, it was not intended to replace or override the state’s constitutions. It was a general document, giving the central government expressed powers for general governing purposes. The states existed before the Federal (central) Government. The Federal Government cannot exist without the states, but the states could exist without the Federal Government. This fact is often lost on modern political discourse.
There were arguments for whether a Bill of Rights was even necessary. The Constitution is a limiting document. If the document does not spell out a specific power to the central government, then the central government does not have that power. The constitution does not say anything about arms therefore the central government does not have the authority to regulate arms. So why is there a need for the 2nd Amendment, or any amendment under the Bill of Rights? Isn’t this superfluous language?
A decade prior, the founders had fought a war for independence from a tyrannical government. The individual states did have reason to be cautious now that they were creating a new central power via the Constitution. The Federalist party, who generally favored a central government, argued against the need for a Bill of Rights as it would be redundant. The central government could not do the things that the Bill of Rights forbade it from doing. The Anti-Federalists argued for a Bill of Rights because they feared that the new Federal Government would abuse power and they wanted certain rights expressly protected.
Interestingly enough, the “first” amendment proposed by many states was what eventually became the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment states that the Federal Government only has the powers delegated to it. All other powers are reserved to the states. This was the most important amendment to get on paper for those who were Constitution-hesitant. The Bill of Rights should not be viewed as an “ultimate say” on the rights of man. It was always intended to be a compromise document to get certain states on board.
This is one area where I actually side with the Federalists. By adopting a Bill of Rights, you’re essentially opening Pandora’s Box by admitting that there needs to be restrictions on powers the Federal Government never had in the first place. Interpretations can run rampant. So how does this apply to the 2nd Amendment?
Remember, the Bill of Rights and the Amendments within only apply to the Federal Government. The Federal Government does not have the power to regulate arms, at all. “Shall not be infringed.” The states had good reason to fear disarmament by a central power. But does that mean the 2nd Amendment gives free reign for citizens to own whichever arms they please? No. This is where the 10th Amendment and the state constitutions factor in. Each state can regulate arms, as long as it is within the confines of their own constitutions.
When someone brings up the argument that 2nd Amendment advocates want private citizens to own nuclear weapons, that is irrelevant. The Federal Government cannot regulate them, but the states can, and should. All 50 states give their constituents the right to bear arms, with some differences. Familiarize yourself with your state’s constitution. It has much more of an impact on your day-to-day life than the Constitution in Washington D.C.
Ultimately, this is something that both sides of the argument get wrong. The 2nd Amendment is not a blank check for any and all arms. On the other side of the coin, the Federal Government has no authority to enact arms regulation. The only way to understand this is through an originalist interpretation of the founding documents.