Quotes from Stephen P. Halbrook

The term "bear," according to Noah Webster, meant "to carry" or "to wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.

Consistent with the meaning of "bear arms" as carrying weapons on the person, Webster defined "pistol" as "a small fire-arm, or the smallest fire-arm used . . . . Small pistols are carried in the pocket."18 An arms historian notes: "Among eighteenth-century civilians who traveled or lived in large cities, pistols were common weapons. Usually they were made to fit into pockets, and many of these small arms were also carried by military officers.

free State" is not some elusive "collective" that is more than the sum of its individual parts. Webster defined "free" in part as follows: "In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord; as a free state, nation or people.

Pennsylvania was the first to declare that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state.

Moreover, British authorities sought to disarm the colonists in order to dominate them politically, economically, and militarily, not as a purported safety measure to protect the colonists from themselves.

The capacity for evil is inherent in mankind, although some institutions promote it and others minimize it.

It was no secret that the people were arming themselves. That could be surmised in newspaper advertisements, such as an early 1774 notice in the Boston Gazette that a merchant "has just imported for sale, a neat assortment of guns, complete with bayonets, steel rods and swivels, a few neat fowling pieces, pocket pistols.

None other than Paul Revere engraved a plate diagramming how to refine saltpeter, an essential component in the making of gunpowder. It was published in August 1774 in the Royal American Magazine, the unlikely title for a magazine published by Isaiah Thomas, a member of the Sons of Liberty.

the Supreme Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) added: "The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights." For that proposition, Justice Samuel Alito, author of the opinion, referred the reader to five chapters of this book.

Dissenting, Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment extended only to the individual "right to use weapons for certain military purposes"8—a curious position, given that militia service is a compulsory duty, and no person has a "right" to bear or use arms as he chooses in a militia or even to be a member thereof. It is noteworthy that no Justice supported the now-discredited "collective rights" theory.

The perpetrators of the Crown's repressive measures were referred to as the "imperial Divan" and as "his most exalted Highness, the most potent, the most omnipotent Bashaw Thomas [Gage], lately appointed by the illustrious Sultan Selim [George] III to the subduction of the military province of B [Boston].

The black gunpowder of that age was far more volatile than modern smokeless powder. As a fire prevention measure, in 1736 the General Court had provided for the building of a powder house.33 Partly as a result of a 1771 petition by patriots such as John Hancock, Sam Adams, and Paul Revere, a new powder house was built on the west side of Boston, by the Charles River and just above the Common, safely away from populated areas to the east.

The above were key events that led the Founders to adopt the Second Amendment. A tyrannical government supported by a standing army had sought to disarm a people through various artifices. It took these repressive measures against both citizens organized as militia and against citizens as individuals. The patriots then exercised their right to keep and bear arms to protect both this right and their many other rights.

A general militia composed of all citizens capable of bearing arms was seen as superior to a select militia consisting of a selective group, which bordered on a standing army, the bane of liberty.

a Demoniac being left in a Room, in which were 18 loaded Muskets," shot three men and wounded another with a sword, "upon which the People present, without further Ceremony, shot him dead."151 For the Founders, the right of the subject to be armed for defense of self and the community was necessary to suppress such tragedies—they never imagined a world in which they would be disarmed for the supposed benefit of preventing access to weapons by madmen.

It was in these days of escalating conflict that ''A. B.C." wrote in the Boston Gazette, as quoted at the beginning of this chapter, that the governor had received three commands from the ministry "more grievous to the People, than any Thing hitherto made known": that "the Inhabitants of this Province are to be disarmed," "the Province to be governed by Martial Law," and patriots "are to be seized and sent to Great-Britain.

John Dickinson of Delaware supported both Mason and Ellsworth. A most important matter was "that of the sword. His opinion was, that the states never would, nor ought to, give up all authority over the militia."10 He proposed that the federal power extend to only part of the militia at any one time, "which, by rotation, would discipline the whole militia."11 Mason then incorporated this idea of "a select militia" into his proposal.

Luther Martin of Maryland replied that "the states would never give up the power over the militia; and that, if they were to do so, the militia would be less attended to by the general than by the state governments."21 After Gerry warned that granting Congress powers inconsistent with the existence of the states would lead to civil war, Madison rejoined that "as the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.

When in 1774 the rulers of Boston dared even to consider disarming the inhabitants, thousands of armed citizens felt justified in assembling and marching into town to demonstrate their opposition. The Founders considered a ban on importation of firearms and ammunition to violate the right to obtain and possess arms.

It would be rather curious if "the people" means only such persons as the government selects. To suggest that "the right of the people" means only a command issued by a government to persons appointed by the government demeans the very nature of a bill of rights.

Rome remained free for four hundred years and Sparta eight hundred, although their citizens were armed all that time; but many other states that have been disarmed have lost their liberties in less than forty years.

Unlike other peoples, the Americans were armed, and the resistance of the state governments would bar a federal tyranny. By contrast, the European monarchies were "afraid to trust the people with arms." In short, the keeping and bearing of arms by the citizens would preserve the republic and protect liberty. The authors of The Federalist Papers contended that an armed populace and state resistance, not paper guarantees, would prevent federal usurpation based on military force.

What "arms" could the people keep and bear? According to Webster, "arms" are "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body."22 Citing Blackstone's Commentaries, Webster noted: "In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.

A citizenry "trained up unto their arms, which they use not for the defense of slavery but of liberty," composes "the vastest body of a well-disciplined militia that is possible in nature.