# Just want to make sure everyone is clear that the Bill of Rights were the People’s rights, not the states, not the state militia. (Gun related)

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468>\
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion\
**Created:** [August 30, 2024, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468 "2024-08-30T12:19:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 75

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\
**Post date:** [September 1, 2024, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468/75 "2024-09-01T22:37:13Z")

</div>

> [@Lumpy](#):
>
> But I’ll note that we wouldn’t even be having this discussion about state bills of attainder, or summary state incarceration without _habeas corpus_, or crowd-control ordinances that essentially pre-defined all unauthorized gatherings as conspiracy to riot.

We also wouldn’t be having this discussion if the 2nd amendment had solely said “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. _But it doesn’t_.

> [@Lumpy](#):
>
> Only the embarrassing and unloved Second Amendment is regarded with any doubts at all.

Only the Second Amendment includes language which its proponents would like to _simply ignore_.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” has meaning. It is best understood in the context of the time. It preserves a state right.

> [@Lumpy](#):
>
> the other provisions of the Bill of Rights were eventually held to be not merely matters of federal versus state jurisdiction but statements of political philosophy, the closest thing our constitution has to expounding a thesis or manifesto on natural rights and the proper relationship of the citizen to the government.

Amendments have been incorporated to the states, but on a case by case basis, based on the understanding that the right being preserved was an individual right, and pursuant to the authority of the 14th amendment.

But that first requires a determination that the right being encapsulated is an individual right. I do understand why some may decide the 2nd does that - it uses the term “the People”, after all.

But, in the context of the time, I think that term is best read as a comparison to a standing “professional” army, of which the founders were wary. Under classic “originalist” philosophy, it was a federal restriction on state sovereignty, and should have remained so.

(Personally, I’m okay with the Supreme Court saying that, as our country has evolved, it has come to be understood as a personal right to own a weapon, and therefore should be protected generally, although it is the proper subject of regulations and restrictions. But that requires an acknowledgment that the constitution can be interpreted in a way not originally contemplated by its authors, something that most 2nd amendment proponents- who tend also to be right wing - disparage).

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-want-to-make-sure-everyone-is-clear-that-the-bill-of-rights-were-the-people-s-rights-not-the-states-not-the-state-militia-gun-related/1006468)._