All through my 35 plus years as an NRA member, and nearly that long as a CRPA member, I have read countless arguments about the semantics of the Second Amendment. None I have seen adequately addresses what to me is the most crucial element. That is the political context under which it was written.
Militia units in the latter 1780's had long been a home guard, even under British authority. I believe the drive to reform access to, and organization of, those existing militia units was inspired by Shays' Rebellion in 1786-87. That was a rebellion against banks in Massachusetts by a growing armed force of farmers. Those farmers became too pressed by economic difficulties and new taxes created to help repay the nation's revolutionary war debts. They could not meet the bank's requirement to repay mortgages with hard currency (gold and silver) only.
The rebellion succeeded in capturing the Massachusetts Assembly. The rebels demanded concessions, including the issue of paper currency. The rebellion was ultimately suppressed with militia forces called by President Washington. But eventually the principals of the rebellion were pardoned and most of their demands were met.
I believe such rebellions--and concerns about commercial restrictions between states--led banker Alexander Hamilton and his Federalists to promote a convention for modifying the Articles of Confederation (those Articles had established a confederation of autonomous states). The convention was held during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It finished with the offering of our present Constitution; allowing less autonomy for individual states and granting federal access to state militias.
Anti-Federalists--mostly farmers and tradesmen, some mentored by Thomas Jefferson--mistrusted the greatly broadened federal powers of that new contract between the federal government, the state governments, and the people. They and the Federalists fought a vicious propaganda battle all through our Constitution's ratification process. That very antagonistic process, along with more mud-slinging later, finally led to Hamilton's death from a duel over the cumulating insults.
During the ratification process Hamilton codified, within The Federalist. published propaganda essays--"written by Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay--favoring the ratification of our Constitution. . Hamilton's article (now called Federalist Paper No. 29) "Concerning the Militia," was mostly a diatribe against anti-Federalist "republicans." Those "republicans" (the precursors of today's Democratic party) had demanded that a Bill of Rights, containing our Second Amendment, be appended to the new Constitution.
Paper No. 29 reveals the Second Amendment's purposes. Therein Hamilton defends his proposal for "well-regulated [fully trained and equipped] , select corps of the young and ardent," apparently, his anti-Federalist "republicans."
Apparenty, his anti-Federalist opponents had argued that such young corps could be too readily "influenced by arbitrary power." Hamilton retorted in Paper No. 29 such battle-ready corps could defend states against an oppressive federal army, if one were ever formed (keeping professional corps like the British Army was unpopular then). Hamilton wanted the rest of the militia (all able-bodied males) to be gathered once per year, only to confirm they kept proper weapons and equipment and remained familiar with militia operations.
Understanding the severe conflict between the Federalists (who wanted fully ready forces for protecting their businesses) and the anti-Federalists (who feared such military power in the hands of any, particularly a Federalist controlled -- central government) makes the Second Amendment's purposes very clear to me.
The anti-Federalists' Second Arnendment was a compromise accepting Hamilton's "well-regulated select corps of.the young and ardent," but it dedicates them first to their states' defense. It also guarantees the right of the people to military arms for fighting with, or against, those "select corps."
I defy any court to honesty refute this. I also challenge them to demonstrate how else we citizens can insure a defense against the exercise of "arbitrary power." They should not bother claiming they are the defense. Being, themselves, among the most arbitrary of powers, that claim would be ridiculous.
They also should never again forge the right to reinterpret our Constitution. It is an inviolable contract between federal, state and popular elements and unalterable without most states' consent.
Its purposes are obviously clear and still current when their formative contexts are known.
