The recent decision of the Pike County Commissioners to make PC a “Second Amendment Sanctuary” deeply concerns me. Adding to my concern are two other recent Courier articles, which typify the so-called ‘originalist’ view of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
In my considered opinion, this view lacks historical accuracy and precedence, having only been formalized by a well-funded Supreme Court decision in 2008 (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER). So I ask the question of the commissioners and other ‘originalists’ -- where is your well-organized militia being necessary to the security of a free State?
The historical intent of the framers of the Second Amendment was clearly to protect the new nation, not its individual citizens. The right to ‘bear arms’ was clearly defined (and limited) in this respect. The precedent of state militias forming the backbone of Washington’s Continental Army was still fresh in their minds in 1789 when the First Congress met to begin drafting this document. The army had largely disbanded in 1783, and it was not until 1792, a full year after the ratification of the Bill of Rights that the Legion of the United States was formed, precursor to today’s US Army.
Of course, the US Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard and many more well-organized ‘militias’ were formed to protect our nation over the years. All of these organizations certainly have the right to bear arms to protect our nation from foreign or even domestic aggression that might encroach upon our freedom or violate the rule of law.
Specifically, the formation of the US National Guard, formally organized on a state-by-state basis in 1903, most closely approximates the original definition and intent of a “well organized militia”. By distinction, private (ie. partisan) armies and ad-hoc vigilante groups are not ‘well-organized militias’ by any definition.
Where does this leave private citizens who believe they have the right to protect themselves with guns against any threat to their property or person? Within the law as interpreted in 2008 but arguably outside the intent of the Second Amendment.
It should be noted that many citizens did own guns and used them for a variety of practical purposes during the period of 1789-1791. This is not at issue. However, at this time, there were only two police departments in the entire country, NYC and Boston. The protection of individual citizens today under the rule of law is primarily through local, state and federal police departments and a complex interweaving of other law enforcement agencies, all of whom have the need for guns to provide safety and security to private citizens.
To recapitulate, the 2nd Amendment does not begin, In order to protect the property and persons of private citizens. This is simply an artifact of recent revisionist Constitutional interpretation. Most pointedly, the 2nd Amendment does not protect those who wish to use guns to protect themselves against any established ‘well-organized militia’, federal, state or local.
Let’s stop pretending that private citizens owning stockpiles of deadly weapons will ever make Pike County a sanctuary of any kind.
David Richard
Milford