Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Pittsburgh, PA
May 28, 1995
Letters To The Editor

A SHORT HISTORY LESSON ON THE FOUNDERS'
VIEW OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the University of Pittsburgh should 
be embarrassed by Richard H. Seeburger's commentary "They Said '
Well-Regulated'" (Forum, April 30). Mr. Seeburger, a Pitt professor
of constitutional law, either does not understand the Second 
Amendment, or he chooses to ignore its dual purpose as supported 
by the following history.

In March of 1789, James Madison urged his colleagues for the first
Congress to adopt certain amendments to the Constitution. 
Specifically, Madison proposed those amendments that would not 
exacerbate the tension between questions of state (local) powers
and federal powers, those amendments dealing with individual rights.
Among those recommended was "The right of the people to keep and 
bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated
militia being the best security of a free country; but no person 
religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to
render military service in person.

In this proposal and the constitutional text, the words "well 
regulated" mean a militia properly trained and prepared for battle,
not one that was sufficiently regulated to be readily controllable
from a central government.

A committee of three -- Madison, John Vining of Delaware and Roger 
Sherman of Connecticut -- was referred to reviewing the proposed 
amendments and other state proposals. The committee agreed upon the
following amendment: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body
of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no 
person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." 
Note the word state was chosen over country, since it applies 
equally well to both a state (i.e., Pennsylvania) or a country.

When this amendment and the others were forwarded to the Senate,
the senators "slashed out wordiness with a free hand."  The third
and fourth articles of the House list were combined into the 
present First Amendment, and the Second Amendment was shortened in
the following way: The militia was described not as "the best
security" of a free state, but as "necessary to the security" of a
free state. "Composed of the people" was dropped in favor of
brevity and the religious exemption from bearing arms was dropped
in fear that a future congress might expand it to include everyone.

The U.S. Bill of Rights, like the English Bill of Rights, recognized
the individual's right to have weapons for his own defense, rather 
than for collective defense -- since, like the Convention Parliament
in 1689, the senators rejected a motion to add "for the common 
defense" after "to keep and bear arms."  Since this basic individual
right was so widely accepted, our country's founders omitted 
statements of explanation for the sake of brevity and elegance, yet
in the long term at the cost of the clarity expounded herein.

Mr. Seeburger's insinuation that "the people" is a collective term
is unfounded. As proof, note that such collectivism cannot be
reasonably applied to the same usage of "the people" in the First, 
Fourth, Ninth and Tent Amendments. In addition, the Second Amendment
states a right "to keep and bear arms." People (individuals) have 
rights. States have powers.
                        ALEXANDER N. LEONARD
                        Reserve