By David Hardy

Robert Shalhope is professor of history, Univ. of Oklahoma. He has published extensively on the revolutionary war and constitutional framing periods of the American History. His article, "Origins of the Second Amendment" appeared in Journal of American History

Shalhope concludes that the second amendment does embody an individual right. He notes that Madison drew from many sources, including Sam Adams, who had sought an amendment to prohibit Congress from preventing 'the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms,' and from Jefferson, who draft for a Va. constitution did not mention the militia but provided 'No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.'

"Madison and his colleagues on the select committee (of the House) charged with drafting a bill of rights were anxious to capture the essence of the rights demanded by so many Americans in so many different forms. To do this they eliminated many suggestions, reworded others, and consolidated as many as possible in order to come up with a reasonable number of amendments. What became the second amendment resulted from this last process. The committee took two distinct, yet related, rightsthe individual possession of arms and the need for a militia made up of ordinary citizensand merged them into a single amendment. As with other amendments that combined various essential rights, it was the intent of the committee neither to subordinate one right to the other nor to have one clause serve as subordinate to the other.

This became obvious in the discussion of the amendment that took place on the floor of Congress. "Although brief, the discussions occasioned by the second amendment is instructive for its indication of congressional intent to protect two separate rights: the individual's right to possess arms and the right of the states to form their own militia. Elbridge Gerry made this clear when he attacked the phrase dealing with conscientious objectors, those 'scrupulous of bearing arms.' ... Gerry was suspicious that the federal government might employ this phrase to 'destroy the constitution iteself. They can declare those who are religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.' This would be a return to European-style governments in which those in authority systematically disarmed the populace. Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania also objected to this phrase for fear it 'would lead to the violation of another article in the constitutions, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms.'"

He concludes that many Americans distinguished between the *duty* to *bear* arms in the militia, and the *right* to *keep and bear* them privately. Others maintained that the two were inseparable. To these, it was essentially that all persons privately own arms, and also essential that they be able to function in a militia. "These men firmly believed that the character and spirit of the republic rested on the freeman's possession of arms, as well as his ability and willingness to defend himself and his society. This was the bedrock, the 'palladium,' of republican liberty. Militia laws in turn ensured that the freemen would remain armed, and thus vigorous republican citizens. ... Thus, the armed citizen and the militia existed as distinct, yet interrelated, elements within American political thought."