The Mason Triad Context of Second Amendment Development and Purpose

Barriers Against Power in All Forms and Departments of Government 
Updated February 22, 2013
   Every existing state bill of rights in 1789 (eight instances) [The Origin of the Second Amendment, pp.747-780], and every proposal of bill of rights related amendments for the Constitution voted on by state ratifying conventions (seven instances) [OSA, pp.151, 260, 446, 459, 481, 505, 735], included a Second Amendment related provision, which was always accompanied with a limit on, or warning that a peacetime standing army was dangerous to liberty. In all cases where a complete bill of rights was involved (thirteen instances), there was a third linked concept closely related to the first two - that military forces were controlled by the "civil power".
   These universally present American bill of rights features were first identified in TheFounders' View of the Right to Bear Arms and dubbed Mason Triads, because their earliest iteration appeared in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights written by George Mason. [FVRBA, p.4] Complete Mason Triads always had leading Second Amendment related protection, either well regulated militia of the people, or, the people have a right to bear arms style language. This was universally followed by language discouraging or limiting a standing army, with the final part subordinating government raised force to the civil power. The Mason Triads from the last four state ratifying conventions duplicated the Second Amendment related protection by including both the people have a right to keep and bear arms and the well regulated militia of the people style language as the leading triad part. [A complete listing of Second Amendment predecessor Mason Triads can be found online in Appendices I and II of The American Revolutionary Era Origin of the Second Amendment's Clauses.]
   While proponents of gun control have interpreted the Second Amendment, its predecessors, and related language appearing in Mason Triads as all about military matters entirely under government control, the exact opposite is actually the case. The purpose of Mason Triads was clearly "barriers against power in all forms and departments of Government" as James Madison described American bills of rights in 1789. [The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.657] He was introducing the predecessor of the U.S. Bill of Rights into Congress and his proposals, based directly on those barriers, were the foundation of the first eight amendments, including both clauses of the Second Amendment. [OSA. pp.654-661]
   Madison and Congress retained the leading Second Amendment related protections from state convention proposed Mason Triads but dropped the final two parts because their restrictions were substantially included in the original Constitution. Funding of armies was limited to two years and required legislative approval, the latter being the limitation specified in four of the original state Mason Triads. Additionally, all military force raised was under the direction of a civilian commander in chief, who was backed up by the power of the entire civil population that had authorized the Constitution, thus making it the supreme law of the land not only on paper, but also in fact. Since numerous period documents presenting Federalist and Antifederalist arms mantras emphasized the people were armed and could prevent tyranny, the only essential Mason Triad part needed as an addition to the Constitution was assurance for existence of an armed populace, which the Second Amendment amply provided. See the previous post, The Second Amendment and Founding Era Arms Mantras, below, for further information.
   Placing the Second Amendment into its appropriate Mason Triad period context as a barrier against government power greatly clarifies its meaning. It was never intended to protect state militia authority because its predecessors were understood as barriers to the power of the states. Instead, its purpose was to assure the people's control over the new Federal Government they authorized and any forces it might raise. This information fully explains the Second Amendment's references to a free state and the necessity of an effective militia of the people, who would be able to self-embody for organized defense with their own arms, because their right to possess and use arms was protected against any meddling by the government.
   The citizens in 1789 relied on flintlock firearms just as the soldiers of a period army. At that time, a standing army in time of peace was the face of tyranny. Today, the face of tyranny is just as common in the world, but is much more intrusive and dangerous, and is usually referred to as a police state. Americans have the constitutional right and duty to prevent the establishment of any police state in the United States. The people must keep their government under their control, which is accomplished, not by fighting, which is only a last resort, but by making certain that violations of the Constitution by those at the helm of government are challenged and reversed.
   In the modern world, government raised forces, whether troops or police, are not armed with flintlock firearms. Police forces always carry modern arms. The purpose of such arms is self-defense. Every American citizen is guaranteed the same right by the Second Amendment. In order for Americans to keep their government and its forces under their control, as the Constitution gaurantees, the people, at a minimum, have the right to keep and bear the same type of arms that police are provided. These arms would include modern pistols, shotguns, and rifles, especially, although not limited to, those chambered for the rounds designated for use by American troops.

Root Causes of Never-ending Second Amendment Dispute - Part 12

Ratification Era Arms Arguments Misconstrued in the Historians' Heller Amicus Brief

Regarding the ratification period arms related arguments, the historians state that:

"Discussion of citizens' access to firearms during the ratification debates of 1787-1788 focused nearly exclusively on the comparative merits and risks of a standing army or the militia." [p.18]

The historians view militia related discussion solely as indicating government authorized militia. Thus, their statement above is entirely misleading. They do not recognize any relationship between the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment and its actual predecessor language in the state bills of rights, which were all restrictions on state authority in favor of an armed civil population rather than references to government authorized militia. The state declarations of rights provisions uniformly related to an armed population that not only authorized the revolutionary era state governments but also secured the civil population's ultimate control over government raised military force. The same bill of rights related concepts of civil control of the military hold true for much of the arms related debate during ratification, although the historians consistently ignored it by refusing to relate the Second Amendment to its state declaration of rights predecessors or to the ongoing period bill of rights dispute.

There were two opposing and oft repeated ratification era arguments about arms and military force appearing in the writings of the period's political partisans that related to bill of rights history much more so than to the historian's proffered militia powers history. A common Federalist Mantra, asserted by those supporting ratification and arguing against a bill of rights, indicated, in its simplest form, that military tyranny was impossible in America because the people were armed. The Antifederalist Mantra was the contrary view from those opposing ratification and supporting a bill of rights. This mantra was a warning that the new government's overwhelming control of military force, whether standing army, select militia (understood as a part-time standing army), or militia in general would be used in such a way as to disarm the people and impose military tyranny and oppression. Simple inclusion in a federal bill of rights of the protections already existing in every one of the state declarations of rights would solve this bill of rights related problem. The historians obviously miss the bill of rights related point of these arguments, that an armed populace is necessary to prevent tyranny. [For more information on the Federalist and Antifederalist Mantras, see The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms.]

Thus, it was not only the Antifederalists that painted a clear picture of an armed populace during the ratification debate. Federalist Mantras presented the reverse arms related argument, which was also often unconnected with government authority over militia. Here is the very detailed Federalist Mantra of Tench Coxe presented in his pseudonymous A Pennsylvanian III article addressed to the citizens of America (Feb. 20, 1788):

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, is is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army must be tremendous and irresistable. Who are these militia? are they not our selves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or foederal constitution hath given away that important right."

Coxe went on to discuss military power and its constitutional authorization in America, but he emphasized that "the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands if either the foederal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." [Origin of the Second Amendment, pp.275-276, all emphasis is in original]

An interesting point about this Federalist Mantra is that Coxe was inspired to write it by James Madison's own Federalists Mantra found in The Federalist #46.

The historians' statement about arms discussions is misleading because it ignores the nature of numerous Federalist and Antifederalist Mantras, all of which emphasize the essential importance of an armed populace to prevent tyranny. It was the state declarations of rights arms provisions, which the historians misinterpreted and refused to connect with development of the Second Amendment, that protected the existence of an armed populace against government power. This concept is inherently dependent upon protection of individual rights.