Our guest today is David E. Young, author, historian researcher...Before we begin, a brief biography is in order to introduce some of you to who this man is, what he's done, and why it's important for RKBA activists to know about his significant work.
Biographical Information:With the preliminaries out of the way, let's ask some questions!
David E. Young
Born, 1947, Flint, Michigan
Graduated with high honors, Michigan State University, 1972, with Bachelor of Science Degree in Park and Recreation Resources specializing in Environmental Interpretation (Naturalist).
Have minors in Music Composition, Mathematics, Earth Sciences, and Biology.
Retired from career with Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources in 2002.
Primarily employed as Park Ranger and Commissioned Park Officer at Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Michigan's largest.
Founded Golden Oak Books in 1987 specifically to self-publish results of research (all self-financed).
Author: True Bear Tales, 1987, 1992, 1996, 2005
Editor: The Origin of the Second Amendment, 1991, 1995, 2001
Author: The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, published Dec. 21, 2007
Hobbies and avocations:
Studying American historical documents relating to development of the Second Amendment as part of the U.S. Bill of Rights and Constitution
Collecting Lake Superior Agates
DC: Until I started doing some background research on you, I’d assumed you were a lifelong academic. But I find out you’re a retired park ranger. Tell me about that part of your life.
DY: A career in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources working as a mid-level state park ranger, primarily at Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, made it possible for me to spend my non-working hours at home with my family pursuing my own interests. For eighteen years at work, I volunteered as a chief steward for the Michigan State Employees Association helping other DNR employees with work related issues; experiences that helped me much better understand people and bureaucracy.
While park ranger may not be the most prestigious of all careers, most Americans trapped in large metro areas can only dream of the fabulous surroundings in which I worked at Michigan's largest state park along the shores of Lake Superior, or the variety of endeavors rangers there were involved in. Porkies rangers are jacks of all trades. As a result of my career, I can do anything (almost).
DC: How did you get interested in Second Amendment scholarship?
DY: Because of the tremendous push for gun control after President Kennedy's assassination in 1963 and the disagreement about the meaning of the Second Amendment that resulted from the gun control agenda that developed afterwards, I got hooked on the controversy over the amendment's intent. By the time I was at Michigan State in the late 60's and early 70's, with the Second Amendment intent dispute continually increasing as more and more gun control laws were sought, I decided to find out for myself exactly why the Founders used the specific language they did and exactly what it meant to them. After graduating from Michigan State University, I decided to pursue in my spare time a personal study of the relevant period historical sources for understanding the Second Amendment. It took several years before it was clear exactly what the RELEVANT historical sources were that I needed to obtain and study.
DC: You started doing your research in the 70’s—long before the Internet made a lot of information available from the comfort of home. I’m assuming it involved a lot of travel and no small amount of personal expense. Give us a feel for what that was like, the major places where you looked for information, an overview of the process you went through…
DY: Not being a wealthy person, having well-to-do relatives, or living next to an extensive university library, I sought out used books early on in my research. Hunting for document collections at used bookstores became a passion. A trip anywhere resulted in considerable time spent rummaging in used bookstores, especially any trip to the East Lansing or Ann Arbor areas. Research led to a better understanding of exactly what sources were those most relevant, and it became apparent that I must do some library research as well as obtain certain document collections, even if that meant buying new books. The more information I got, the more information it became apparent would be needed. I made several overnight trips specifically to hunt for material at Northern Michigan University's library. I also started forking out a small fortune by my standards for new copies of document collections so they could be pursued at my own pace at home. The $50+ price of many of these volumes needed in the late 70's and early 80's was really a problem due to the fact that my wife took care of our children and did not have an outside job, and park ranger is not the highest paid of professions.
DC: Any surprises along the way? Did you glean any information from any unlikely sources? Did you have any preconceptions challenged or overturned?
DY: I was surprised how little attention those arguing the Second Amendment's intent paid to The Origin of the Second Amendment, with a clear exception for Dave Kopel, who has reviewed it four different times and used it extensively in one of his articles. I was also surprised that ORIGIN did not bring a relatively quick end to the Second Amendment intent dispute, which is probably because everyone largely ignored it.
Unlikely source: I noticed an almost exact analog of the Second Amendment engraved across the front of Angell Hall at the University of Michigan many years ago on a used bookstore hunting trip. It took a number of years before I discovered that the analog sentence came from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. [In the Heller case respondent's brief, it is pointed out that the Northwest Ordinance containing the analog was reauthorized by Congress the same year it passed the Bill of Rights amendments].
Preconceptions: Well, like everyone else, I have my own little theories about why certain things happened based on the available historical facts. My first theory about why there is Virginia and Pennsylvania style state bill of rights language combined in the Second Amendment was wrong. After obtaining all the historical facts, it became apparent that my original idea was not tenable. This situation is the very reason why I quit writing short articles after the 1970's and pursued collecting all of the Constitutional Era sources before writing anything else. It is also the reason why I have studied the sources an additional sixteen years before writing my new book, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms. Much of the material that has appeared in law review articles over the decades has consisted of little theories based on partial facts that are not consistent with all of the historical facts.
DC: Tell me about the “Bear” book. And while you’re at it, and understanding that there are many behaviors people can follow to minimize dangerous encounters, if you were attacked by an aggressive bear, what would you prefer as your ultimate backup: pepper spray or a firearm with adequate stopping power?
DY: True Bear Tales is a collection of anecdotal black bear stories, mostly from Michigan's Upper Peninsula, that were collected during my career at Fort Wilkins and Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Parks. The Porkies was black bear problems central in the Upper Peninsula in the past. My stories are presented as humorous incidents (with a few appropriate exceptions) so that those interested can understand what the bears are usually doing as well as what they are capable of doing. True Bear Tales, which is sold mostly to tourists in the Copper Country region of Michigan, is the funding source for publication of my Second Amendment research. Without the bear book, the Second Amendment related books might not exist.
As for the hypothetical bear encounter question, the ultimate backup is a firearm. Note, however, that bear spray is very, very effective when properly used.
DC: I’ve told WarOnGuns readers before that the most dog-eared book on my shelf is “The Origin of the Second Amendment.” Give us the Cliffs Notes version of what it’s about. How many years in the making was it, from concept to publication? And here’s kind of a nosy follow-up, but as one who appreciates what you’ve given us, I’d like to know if we almost didn’t get it: Were you ever tempted to give up along the way?
DY: Origin of the Second Amendment is a complete document collection relating to the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights covering the period from 1787, when the Constitution was written, until 1792, when notification of the Bill of Rights' ratification was announced. ORIGIN contains relevant material literally transcribed from newspaper articles, editorials, broadsides, pamphlets, speeches, proceedings, and amendment proposals that directly or indirectly relate to the Second Amendment and its adoption as part of the U.S. Bill of Rights. It was first published in 1991 and took twenty years of collecting documents to produce. It took about two years to type in all the material. The documents are presented without editorial comment as to their meaning or significance. The second edition has just short of 800 pages of documents, which includes approximately 450 separate sources, and runs about 900 pages total. It is a research tool for Second Amendment buffs. I decided in the mid-1980's to publish all of the documents as the dispute over Second Amendment intent continued unabated.
I was never tempted to give up along the way, first, because the historical materials I uncovered always reinforced the rights protecting nature of the Second Amendment, and second, because the anti-rights "scholars" just kept spinning and explaining away our history and culture as if they never existed and were completely unimportant.
DC: Was Emerson your first “big break” in terms of being cited in a court case? How did your work influence the 5th Circuit ruling?
DY: Yes, the 2001 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Emerson was the first time ORIGIN was cited by a court. In fact, that was also the first case in which ORIGIN was cited to a court. Thus, for the first time, judges had all of the Constitutional Era documents relating to the Second Amendment easily available to base a decision on. The court's justices used ORIGIN to verify the accuracy of the competing arguments being presented to them about the Second Amendment's intent and also to document their decision with over a hundred citations.
I have examined the Emerson decision very carefully because of the large number of cites to ORIGIN. Probably two of the justices and at least one court clerk actually read The Origin of the Second Amendment in order to come up with the decision and its particular layout. The Appendix to the Emerson decision is based upon ORIGIN but not solely upon the documents cited from it. The organization of the Appendix is clearly based on a series of period arguments presented in the Introduction to The Origin of the Second Amendment. I do not claim that ORIGIN won the case because there was lots of material from other pro-rights scholars presented in a number of amicus briefs in that case. Only the Second Amendment Foundation cited ORIGIN, however.
DC: Your work is also cited in Heller? By whom, and how did they use it?
DY: Both The Origin of the Second Amendment and my new definitive history, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, have been cited extensively in the Heller case.
ORIGIN was cited a total of thirty-eight times in six briefs supporting Heller, including the respondent's merits brief by Alan Gura, and amicus briefs from Academics for the Second Amendment, Gun Owners of America, State Firearms Associations, Retired Military Officers, and the Paragon Foundation, as well as in two briefs supporting DC. One of the latter cited ORIGIN twenty-eight times along with numerous other period sources in an attempt to snow the justices, event though some of their cited documents directly contradict their own argument and none of them actually support it.
The Founders View of the Right to Bear Arms, which was just published a few weeks after the Supreme Court consented to review the Heller case, has been cited a total of seventeen times in various pro-Heller briefs, including Alan Gura's respondent's merits brief and amicus briefs from Gun Owners of America, the Pennsylvania Senate President Pro-tem, and Academics for the Second Amendment. Both books were used largely to document various historical facts. It is also the case that some other points in the respondent's brief were based upon information presented in The Founders' View and cited to the original period documents, which I provided upon request.
DC: Tell us about your newest book, “The Founders’ View of the Right to Bear Arms.” How does it tie in with “Origin”? How does it diverge?
DY: The Founders View is a concise history. In other words, it is my straightforward story about the relevant history, not a document collection like ORIGIN. The Founders' View traces only the most relevant American characters, comments, actions, and resolutions that resulted in development and adoption of the Second Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights. My new book relies on ORIGIN as its main document source for the Constitutional Era. ORIGIN intentionally included all Constitutional Era sources, whereas, The Founders' View covers only the most relevant information by design in an effort to cut through all the decades of politicized spin and get to the heart of the matter in a concise manner.
DC: Where do your sales come from? The Internet? Your site? Online vendors like Amazon? Brick-and-mortar chains? College bookstores? And what can readers do to help raise awareness, get stores to carry them and libraries to order them?
DY: Most sales in recent years came from Amazon. The Second Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America have sold ORIGIN in the past and both will probably sell the Founders' View, although, at present, only Gun Owners of America has it listed on the book sales page. The only "bookstore" to carry ORIGIN was that located as part of Guncraft Sports in Knoxville, TN. The vast majority of those who obtained ORIGIN were actually individuals who are died-in-the-wool Second Amendment types, just like you, David. Often, they are so fed up with all the wrangling in the law reviews about the Second Amendment's intent that they decided to actually take a look at the documents and see all the historical facts for themselves.
Awareness is the big problem. Other than a few of the brief writers in the Heller case and those who have actually read those briefs, practically no one is aware that the new book, The Founders' View, exists, or that it actually contains a considerable number of new and essential facts for understanding the development and purpose of the Second Amendment. Libraries are always happy to hear from people regarding the books they would like the library to obtain. All one has to do is ask. Bookstores are not ever likely to carry either of these books because they are set up to handle commercially published books. Readers can help raise awareness by informing their friends who are interested in the Second Amendment about my books' existence, just as you are doing with this interview.
DC: So what is the purpose of the Second Amendment? Insurrection? A National Guard? Hunting? Self defense?
DY: The goal of the Second Amendment is to secure the free state the people have authorized against possible future tyranny. This requires that the militia, the able-bodied males, be capable of effective self-embodying defensive action, something which is dependent on them having access to their own arms and knowledge of their use. The only way to assure this against misconstruction and abuse of the government's powers is to protect the right of individuals to have and use arms for any legitimate purposes. The overriding concern is mutual defense against government tyranny, which is entirely dependent upon each individual having the right and ability to defend himself so he can associate with others for defense of the community if ever necessary. Hunting and target shooting, etc., are clearly beneficial aspects of this right, and since they involve having and using arms, are protected. I have emphasized the developmental historical examples relating to these points in The Founders' View.
DC: Here’s an unfair question. Look into your crystal ball and give us the likely outcome of Heller. Do you think SCOTUS will rule it an individual right with a lower standard than strict scrutiny, and if so, what’s the next best challenge or strategy to proceed?
DY: This IS entirely out of my area of expertise, so here is my guess. I think it likely that the Supreme Court's Heller decision will be 7-0, maybe even a 9-0, that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right. The justices will not want to write an opinion that is directly contradicted by overwhelming historical evidence. Any split will be over the level of scrutiny. The minority, if any, will want a low level of scrutiny so most laws, including DC's complete handgun ban, will be considered reasonable and constitutional. I think the majority will rule that the Second Amendment, like the first, protects fundamental rights. My research, which has been set directly before the Court in several different briefs, certainly backs up a fundamental right of the highest order. None of our rights would ever have been protected in any of the original American bills of rights if Americans had not been armed and able to protect those rights against the British. The British claimed a right to "bind Americans in all cases whatsoever," and they attempted to enforce their right with arms.
However, the Court has a simple means to avoid making this type of ruling if it so desires. It can simply affirm the lower court ruling in Parker, leaving all other issues to future cases. Because the historical sources are so clear and voluminous, and also because The Founders' View makes the development of the Second Amendment so easily understood by presenting the rest of the history not previously known, I have great hopes that the Court will make a historic ruling by addressing the clear history in this case. If there is any delay in promulgation of the decision, I predict just as I did for the Emerson case that the justices are actually reading the period sources. That would be a very good sign because the result will be another blockbuster individual rights ruling like Emerson, but actually overturning an unconstitutional law in this case.
DC: I’ve had a bone to pick with some of the leading 2A academics for some time. Some have deemed registration not to be an infringement on RKBA because of the requirement for militia members to muster with specified armaments and accoutrements, which would then be logged into the rolls. My argument is that ensuring an adequately equipped fielded force is one thing—but it’s not the same as making citizens register everything back at home they did not bring with them, nor did it require those not in service to provide such information—and likewise, private sales/bartering between individuals were commonly just that, with no record or trail. Thoughts?
DY: Gun control advocates refer to the period requirement under militia laws of showing up at militia muster with a specific type of firearm, or the very rare provision which provided for unannounced visits by officers to men's homes for the purpose of verifying their possession of the required type of firearm, as registration. Such period requirements were far different than the registration that anti-rights types want imposed by government today. Many people would happily comply with a government provision requiring them to possess the current issue military rifle, and even a requirement that militia officers could show up unannounced and demand that a man actually get his firearm out of the house and show it to them. But that is far, far from what gun control advocates are after, isn't it? Don't hold your breath for them to push adoption of true militia laws anytime soon.
The specific action underpinning Americans' modern distrust of gun control advocate inspired registration was the disarming of Bostonians after the Battles of Lexington and Concord. What started out as an agreement to turn in arms so people who desired to could depart from town with all of their other possessions soon unilaterally morphed on the part of the British into a decree that all were enemies of the King who possessed any. Anyone found afterwards with hidden arms in their house was put into prison for 75 days. It is interesting how those who have a monopoly or massive overplus of force have a habit of making everyone else do what they want, by force if necessary. There is no reason why the government needs a list of all firearms and owners other than to make it easy to seize such arms, an action giving those in control of the government a monopoly of force never intended, in fact, protected against under our Constitution. Registration of firearms and owners is not much different than registration of Jews or any other religion or sect. Why register those who exercise their rights?
DC: I’ve reported that you’ll be attending NRA’s upcoming 2008 Annual Meeting in Louisville, KY. When is that, what will you be doing there, and how can people meet you in person?
DY: Yes, I will be at the Second Amendment Films booth (number 1551) on all three days of the Show at the NRA Exhibits Hall. The Show days are Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, May 16, 17, and 18. I will be answering questions, discussing points of interest to attendees, and promoting not only my own books, The Origin of the Second Amendment and The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, but also David Hardy's Documentary, In Search of the Second Amendment. David Hardy will also be present at the booth on Saturday the 17th and Sunday the 18th, but he will be at the Firearms Law Seminar all day Friday. We are calling this unique event for an NRA Show "Hardy and Young giving 'em Heller". Second Amendment Films will be selling copies of my books and David Hardy's DVD Documentary at booth 1551 during the Show hours.
To meet me, all one need do is stop by booth 1551. It is located about four booths from the back of the Exhibits Hall in the 1500's isle, which runs approximately in the middle of the Hall from front to back. Note, however, that It is not a through aisle. Sometimes people miss booths using the standard up and down each isle method to make sure and see everything. Most of the isles are not through isles at this year's show due to large displays by major manufacturers. Anyone who is interested should stop by and have a chat. It ought to be most interesting, especially now that the Heller case is before the Supreme Court. I can imagine a lot of friendly animated discussion.
DC: Any thoughts you’d like to share with WarOnGuns visitors before we open the floor for questions?
DY: I specialize in study of the Constitutional Era and, to a lesser extent, the Colonial and Revolutionary Eras. Remember that my area of expertise is the development and adoption of the Second Amendment ending with Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson's announcement regarding ratification of the Bill of Rights amendments on March 1, 1792. Historical questions about anything after that date are simply requests for my personal opinion based on my best guess. Ask away!
----------------
Thank you, David E. Young. This has already been a real education as well as a pleasure, and I can't wait to see what else we're going to learn here today.
Now comes the time when I promised I'd turn the questioning over to WarOnGuns visitors. Before I do, I'd like to set the ground rules to keep everything on track.
Please look at the questions I asked and the questions posed by others so we're not covering the same ground twice, and please heed the caveat about Mr. Young's area of expertise. Please limit your questions and give everyone a chance.
And of course, off-topic posts, spam and obscenities will be deleted without comment.
Finally, and this is important: Please ask him concise questions. We're here to hear him out, not post essays or engage other question posters in debate. Look at my questions as a general guide to requested length. If, based on my judgment I think it appropriate, I'll just hit "delete" and you can take it up with me by email [dcodreaAThotmailDOTcom].
Sorry if this seems rule-heavy, but I've learned I need to do this from past interviews to keep things running smoothly. If we keep things on track and just observe a few simple courtesies, we all ought to learn from this and have a good time.
One last note--I disabled CAPTCHA word verification on comment posts for the duration of this interview.
The floor is now open for questions.
COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED
Past WarOnGuns Interviews:
Matthew Bracken
David Hardy
Ryan Horsley
Clayton Cramer
33 comments:
Do you have plans yet for a next project, and if so, what would you like to explore?
I don't want to open up a can of worms but I believe ammo is just as protected as firearms under the Second Amendment, do you feel I'm correct?
I have no extensive plans for a new project yet. Just trying to let people know that The Founders' View exists and will solve the problem of exactly what well regulated militia language meant to the Founders and why it was combined with right of the people to keep and bear arms language in the Second Amendment. The publication of ORIGIN and The Founders' View is the culmination of my life's Second Amendment research.
I have been writing critical commentary about the historical arguments presented in the pro-DC Heller amicus briefs. Just finished one on the Professional Linguists brief and will try to get it up on the page later today if possible.
As for ammunition, I agree that it is protected by the Second Amendment just as arms that are useless without it are. The British attempted to disarm Americans well prior to hostilities of the Revolution by buying and seizing all gunpowder as well as stopping all imports of same.
Just wanted to drop a line and say a big Thank You to both David and Mr. Young. Mr. Young, I will be ordering your Origins book today.
Thank you.
Stephen, your are welcome. It's on its way.
One of the more pernicious excuses for gun control (one can hardly call it an argument) is the assertion that "assault weapons" bans are justified because the Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined today's technological advances in military hardware.
What did the FF's say about civilian parity with military arms?
It is evident that the Founders understood the militia (the able-bodied men) should have their own muskets, which were the standard issue firearm for the soldiers of any army during that period. The reason why rifles, which were much more accurate than smoothbore muskets, were not considered to be militarily as usefull for defense was because they were slower to reload and fire the next shot. Americans were not only required under the militia laws, but understood it as their right, to have the faster firing firearms that were more useful for mutual defense.
The most notable comment on this came from Federalist Tench Coxe in a newspaper essay. He indicated that, "Their swords, and every other terrible implement of a soldier are the birthright of an American."
Coxe was here presenting what I have dubbed as the Federalist Mantra in my new book. The generalized Federalist Mantra was a statement that tyranny was impossible because the people were armed. Such Mantras were routinely offered by the Federalists to increase support of the Constitution.
Thank you, Mr. Young.
Would it be fair, and in your opinion Constitutional, to assert that it is a protected right to own automatic firearms such as those currently in military and police armories?
I am aware that the argument has been taken to absurd extremes, with gun control proponents setting up strawman arguments, that we gun rights advocates want to give nuclear weapons to toddlers, but what do you see as the limits of the 2nd Amendment?
Rather than stating what might be an upper limit on arms that individuals have a right to keep and use, I would rather indicate what it seems clear to me, based on my research, were intended to be included in those they have a right to possess. That would always include the issue firearms for soldiers.
Considering what the standard issue firearm is today for soldiers, and that Chicago just recently decided that it would be a good idea to issue the same type of selective fire rifles to ALL of their policemen, there certainly is no reason why such arms are not included in those protected by the Second Amendment.
Fascinating discussion so far. I am interested to know, what, if any, historical precedent or writings exist for the Constitutionality of something like a BATFE? Thanks in advance.
I read "rebel" Patriots disarmed "loyalist" Tories in certain locales--along the lines of nullifying enemy combatants--aside from instances like those, are you aware of any other gun prohibitions enacted on the general populace by Americans in the founding era?
Philsophically, it has been my position that the Bill of Rights is nothing more than a statement of restrictions on government, and that the liberties enumerated therein still exist regardless of the state of the printed word.
There have recently been calls for the abolition of the Second Amendment from gun control advocates and even some elected congressmen.
What do you see as the FF's governing philosophy regarding the liberty that the 2nd Amendment describes? Would we be justified in fighting for the RTKBA even if the 2A, or even the Constitution itself, had never been written?
Regarding the consitutionality of the BATFE, this is a question I have not thought about previously, believe it or not. It would require my studying the enacting laws, which is somewhat beyond my area of expertise. I study the history up to ratification of the Bill of Rights amendments.
For David C.: I am unaware of any gun prohibitions enacted on the general populace by Americans in the Founding Era. However, along the lines that you mentioned (nullifying possible enemy combatants), Congress recommended the disarming of all "non-associators" early in the Revolution. "Non-associators" were those able-bodied free men who had not self-embodied for organized defense against the claims of unlimited authority by the British. The various states had to actually pass the laws disarming such men, who were generally the loyalists.
Mr. Young:
In your knowledgable opinion, do you think a righteous insurrection could succeed today in what is an increasingly "Sovietized" America?
-Uzziel-
I think what Gaviota is getting at is that, under the U.S. Constitution, the government has only the powers given to it and no others. The Bill of Rights was added to make certain everyone understood that the new government could not use the powers given to it for violating the listed, fundamental rights.
The Federalists routinely argued that none of the powers given to the Federal Government were intended to allow it to violate the rights protected in the state bills of rights, which are the source for the protections of the first eight amendments. This was their argument why a bill of rights was unnecessary in the Consitution in the first place.
Since it is clear that it was never the Federalists' intention to give the government power to violate the protected rights, and because fundamental and unalienable rights exist whether written down or not (and whether violated or not), removal of the Second Amendment does not destroy the right protected. It would still exist and still be worth fighting for. The alternative is tyranny and oppression at the whim of those in power.
Also, removal of the Second Amendment would not authorize the government to violate the protected rights. When we get to the point where our governments are being authorized to violate our fundamental rights, then you will know we really have problems. So far we just have some people trying to ignore and argue away fundamental rights that are clearly stated (from my point of view based on the Founders' views)and that are part of the supreme law of the land.
Any armed insurrection, righteous or otherwise, against the United States government would be instantly crushed, and the vast majority of the people of the United States would assist in the crushing.
Mr. Young,
In your studies have you encountered any documents by the Founding Fathers or their contemporaries; that expresses the opinion the 2nd amendment was not an individual right?
If an armed insurrection "would be instantly crushed" (and I agree it would be), then how can firearms be used for resisting oppression?
The last successful armed insurrection I'm aware of was the Battle of Athens TN, in 1946. This implies insurrection was once possible, but is no longer. If Heller wins, and if (as now seems likely) pro-gun sentiment re-establishes itself, will (limited, local) insurrection once again be possible?
Are even unsuccessful insurrections useful in that they make authorities more cautious?
I ask because gun-grabbers often raise just these points in their arguments. I have my own answers, but since this is your soapbox, not mine....
And thank you very much for this informative interview, and for your invaluable scholarship.
The short answer to Bob S.'s question is No.
This is a more complicated question than Bob probably intended. Here is my complex answer.
From a historical point of view, this is almost a trick question, although I am sure Bob. S. did not mean it that way. Here is the reason why. The Second Amendment did not exist as such (#2) until the proposed amendments were ratified. The right to arms protection was proposed as number four in a list of twelve. The first two, which were not bill of rights provisions, were not ratified by the state legislatures. Thus, numbers three through twelve became the first ten amendments, and number four became the Second Amendment. Because of this history, there could have been no discussion of "the Second Amendment", per se, until after ratification.
My view is that, after ratification, any subsequent discussion cannot alter the intent of the Second Amendment. For that reason, I do not generally study dicussion about the Second Amendment from after ratification.
What I study is the development and intent of the protection found in the Second Amendment. There is lots of discussion about the people possessing their own arms during the Founding Era.
I have not encountered any documents from the Founding Era by anyone that express an opinion that the right later protected in the Second Amendment was other than an individual or private right.
I have two questions. One if the vast majority of Americans were to decide to not aid in the crushing of any insurrection, and might possibly be sympathetic to it, what do you view as the likely outcome?
Two: We often hear the argument presented that even if the 2A guarantees an individual right, the limits were meant to be those arms man portable by a single man and man operable by a single man. Is this not proven a fallacious argument in light of the section of the main body of the constitution authorizing letters of marque and reprisal issuance to privately owned commercial sea-going vessels routinely armed with cannon? Also does not the history of our revolution out of which our nation was born document many examples of privately owned crew served weapons such as cannon?
Sorry, one question leads to another. I thought of another, but will hold it. Thank you.
In answer to JDMooreTX: Well, first of all, you are asking about what might be, not something I claim any expertise in. However, here are some thoughts.
First, there is a big difference between an insurrection and a revolution by definition. I will not try to define them here. Your reference to Anthens, TN, did not exactly involve an insurrection against the United States government IIRC.
As you have pointed out, gun control advocates often bring up insurrection. They like to call those who take the Second Amendment for exactly what it says the intentionally odious epithet of insurrectionists. This apparenly makes them feel better about themselves as they pursue actions that would destroy our constitutionally protected rights.
The gun control advocates use of the insurrection argument is not one iota different than their historical arguments, which are all off-base. Their arguments in general are not intended to inform and explain, but rather to obscure and frighten. Think of a bad, nasty word that those arguing against rights can use in relation to guns and the Second Amendment and it is only a matter of time before it shows up in debate on the subject from them.
Gun control advocates cannot tell the difference between the insurrectionists in 1786 Massachusetts (Shays Rebellion) and the patriots who protected their rights against claims of unlimited authority by Britain. I am not exactly certain why anyone would want to pay attention to anthying they might happen to say or write. However, it is exactly the diversionary and obfuscatory historical arguments from advocates of gun control that have resulted in the many decades of dispute about Second Amendment's intent. The whole purpose of my book, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, is to cut through all of this hoopla and simply look at the honest to goodness actual history of the Second Amendment, which makes it perfectly clear that it does what the other first eight amendments do - protect private rights against misconstruction and abuse of power.
The model that Americans have for when their rights and constitution are being destroyed and they must take action to prevent such a disaster is the American Revolution. Most people, even many history teachers I am sure, know little about it. That is why studying our history is important. However, I suspect that modern Americans will know if those running the government ever attempt to claim unlimited authority or try to violate the Constitution wholesale and will take appropriate action well before any revolution would be necessary.
For Strightarrow: Hypothetical what ifs about possible events are not exactly things that I have thought about or can provide any better guess for an answer than anyone else. Honest. I don't sit around thinking about such things.
Before those in power can exercise unlimited authority, they would have to destroy the Constitution. If they destroy the Constitution, they destroy their only claim to authority over Americans. If they have no authority, there would be no reason for anyone to obey them. If those with no authority try to use force against others, the others have a right to defend themselves. Before any of these things could occur, the people would have to be disarmed so they could not defend themselves when ordered to do things by those with no authority. Since the right to keep and bear arms is protected in the Constitution, this is the area where the people can determine whether there is going to be any attempt at overt destruction of the Constitution. Outright destruction has to begin with the Second Amendment. Right at this moment, the third branch of government is considering the meaning of the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Federal City's gun bans. I think the third branch is going to uphold the Constitution, not the arguments from a bunch of high paid losers who cannot read English and understand it.
There certainly were crew served privately owned weapons before, during, and after the Revolution. The references in the Consitutional Era documents generally refer to arms that people usually kept in their homes, although the exact type is not necessarily defined. I am unaware of any Consitutional Era documents tying the right to keep and bear arms to cannon on ships. I try not to interpret the Bill of Rights provisions by using the power granting provisions in the body of the Consitution as a guide. Look what a mess the gun control advocates have made by using the militia clauses to explain the Second Amendment. Also, I look at discussion about cannons in relation to the right of the people to keep and bear arms as strawman or red-herring arguments that shed more heat than light because they divert attention from the main point.
Aaaha! Just what I was waiting to hear, thank you Mr. Young, in fact let me make that a BIG THANK YOU MR. YOUNG!
Mr. Young you said, "Outright destruction has to begin with the Second Amendment."
If I read you right, are you saying that the Founders made darn sure that the people could be armed because if government was going to go down the wrong road. Then that government would go after the Second Amendment first?
Than that would mean the Second Amendment is the master link to the Bill of Rights. If I have this right, this makes the Second Amendment a gift of insurance by the Founding Fathers.
Actually, it was some of the founding generation who said that before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. That particular comment came from Noah Webster, who was a Federalist. He went on to state that the new government cannot enforce unjust laws by force because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any possible army the government can raise.
As noted in one of the above answers, it was the Federalists' Mantra that indicated tyranny could not occur because the people are armed. This had its Antifederalist Mantra counterpart, the general form of which was that that the people either could or would be disarmed and tyranny ensue under the new Constitution. These Mantra titles are my appellations applied in the new book, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms. Apparently, no one previously noted how many of these there were in the Ratification Era debates to bother giving them a name.
It is clear from all these Mantra's that the people were armed and everyone thought that was necessary to prevent tyranny. The Federalists were encouraging ratification of the Constitution with strong military powers and without a bill of rights because tyranny was impossible due to the armed populace. One reason why Antifederalits wanted a bill of rights like those of the states was to assure that there would always be an armed populace to prevent tyranny. Every state bill of rights had a Second Amendment related provision at the time. Because both sides overwhelmingly agreed that an armed populace was desireable to prevent tyranny, protection for individuals possessing their own arms was assured.
Today, those supporting gun control deny that the Second Amendment protects individual rights and was intended as a guard against government tyranny. Yet there are all these Fed and Anti Mantras from both political sides during ratification indicating that is exactly why an armed populace was necessary and finally protected in the Bill of Rights amendments.
Obviously, before there can be tyranny, the armed populace must be done away with. Before that can be accomplished, the Second Amendment has to go. Advocates of gun control are attempting to accomplish that right now. I do not, however, believe that gun control advocates are trying to impose tyranny. It will be the unintended consequence of their actions.
Your work is much appreciated, an order for a couple of books is on the way. RW.
"I try not to interpret the Bill of Rights provisions by using the power granting provisions in the body of the Consitution as a guide." David F. Young
I would ask you to do so. The powers of letters of marque and reprisal, to my mind, presuppose an armed populace with all the right to all the implements of war. This prior to the ratification of the second amendment. That power granted to the government seems, to me, to be completely reliant upon the effective arming of the private citizen.
Some years later the second amendment was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights which guaranteed that government power could not usurp, truncate, or eliminate that right, and in fact, as regards the issue of marque and reprisal relied upon the exercise of that right.
Would you agree or disagree with my view of it?
Mr. Young, I'm not sure how to reconcile this statement:
Any armed insurrection, righteous or otherwise, against the United States government would be instantly crushed . . .
. . . with this one:
Obviously, before there can be tyranny, the armed populace must be done away with.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if an armed insurrection can be instantly crushed, why must an armed populace be done away with, in order to impose tyranny? The first statement, as I read it, seems to imply that, armed citizenry or no, the government would be able to impose its tyrannical will, by simply crushing the insurgency.
I have no doubt that I'm missing something obvious, but I can't figure out what it is.
Thank you for all your superb work, and for taking the time to share some of your knowledge.
We've occupied Mr. Young for over 12 hours now--I'm going to let him answer anything outstanding and then begin winding this down and closing off comments.
For Straightarrow: While answering questions with question may be viewed as evasive, they seem appropriate here. My view is that, while perfectly legitimate questions, they are strawmen or red herrings that divert attention away from a clear understanding of our rights. While there is no doubt that there were privately owned cannon in early America, just as there are today, do you think that was a stated reason for addition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution? What percentage of the population would you suppose owned cannons during the Constitutional Era as opposed to typical small arms? Are you aware of a single Constitutinal Era source indicating that guaranteeing the private ownership of cannons was a concern of those seeking bill of rights provisions that would relate to the Second Amendment? Let me suggest that, if this is an area of primary concern to you personally, that you start searching for and collecting every document that can be found on the subject. It does not overly interest me because my view is that it is a red herring engendeing dicussion but no facts for resolution. I do not have facts that will help you out here off the top of my head.
An insurrection is an action by a minority to throw off legitimate government. The government can crush an insurrection because it is an attempt by a minority to tell the majority what will be law. Tyranny, on the other hand, is the imposition by a minority of force upon the majority of people without authority. These are two completely different animals. The former is easily crushed because the people will support the government they have authorized against the small number of insurgents.
To impose tyranny, however, the population must be disarmed. This is the case because it is a minority, the rulers, using a an armed minority, the army (today the army and the police - that is why they are called police states in modern times) to force the vast majority of the population to obey their decrees. Their decress have no authority from the people behind them, only force to back them up. This cannot be effective unless the people are not in a position to defend themselves. Such concepts were actually discussed extensively during the Ratification Era. The purpose of an armed populace is defense, not invading other countries.
I would like to thank all those who have participated today, and expesially David Codrea who has done a lot of work to make this interview possible. It is always interesting to exchange views and find out what is of interest to everyone. If any of you are going to be in Louisville this coming weekend, by all means stop by Booth 1551 at the NRA Exhibits and say hello.
That's all folks--we've been at this for some time, and Mr. Young and I are both beat.
I'd like to once again express my gratitude to him for spending so much time with us today, and also thank those of you who participated in this interview with your thoughtful questions.
I urge you to learn more by seeing what Mr. Young has written. I have links to how you can get his books in the interview, above. I truly believe you owe it to yourself to follow up on that.
Those of you going to the NRA meeting in Louisville--seek him out and say hello. I'm sure he'll be happy to speak with you if there were questions you didn't get a chance to ask here.
Comments are now closed.
Post a Comment