Constitutional expert explains meaning behind 2nd Amendment

Constitutional scholar Prof. Eugene Volokh last month shut down the gun control argument with his explanation of the Second Amendment. 

“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,” reads the Constitution. 

Speaking for PragerU, Volokh put the amendment into historical context, clarifying what the Founding Fathers intended with the law. 

Most importantly, those who want to ban most guns because “you don’t need them for hunting” or because “you don’t need them for self-defense" are missing the point of the Second Amendment entirely because the Constitution’s Framers saw guns as having a very different purpose. 

“In the 1790s, the phrase ‘free State’ wasn’t used to mean an individual state like New York or Rhode Island,” said the UCLA law professor. “Rather, it meant what we’d call today a ‘free country’ — a nation free of despotism. A ‘free State’ is what the Framers wanted America to be. They saw an armed citizenry as, in part, a hedge against tyranny. Citizens who own weapons can protect themselves, prevent tyrants from seizing power, and protect the nation from foreign enemies.” 

Famed rapper Ice-T drew heads in 2016 when he explained to Britain’s Channel 4 why Americans should own guns. 

“It's part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that's the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It's to protect yourself from the police,” he said. 

Importantly, other Constitutional experts have pointed out that the Second Amendment does not grant the people the right to bear arms, because it was never the government’s right to bestow. All the government may do – and must do – is ensure that this right “shall not be infringed."

Furthermore, the Framers’ definition of “militia” was not how we define it today. 

“[T]he Militia Act of 1792 defined ‘militia’ to mean all white males 18 to 45,” continued Volokh. “Today, of course, ‘militia’ would include women and people of all races, but it was clearly not a reference to a small, National Guard-type group.” 

Since the purpose of the right to bear arms is to be a safeguard against a tyrannical government, Americans should not need to prove to the government why they bear arms, according to the United States Supreme Court. 

As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas opined in New York Rifle Assn., Inc v. Bruen in June: 

We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense. 

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.