The Founder's Second Amendment

by Stephen P. Halbrook

Stephen P. Halbrook's The Founders' Second Amendment is the first book-length account of the origins of the Second Amendment, based on the Founders' own statements as found in newspapers, correspondence, debates, and resolutions. Mr. Halbrook investigates the period from 1768 to 1826, from the last years of British rule and the American Revolution through to the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the passing of the Founders' generation. His book offers the most comprehensive analysis of the arguments behind the drafting and adoption of the Second Amendment, and the intentions of the men who created it.

Genres: History, Politics, Law, Nonfiction, American History

450 pages, Paperback

First published February 14, 2008

Reviews

[Lily P. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Exhaustive research by a strict constitutionalist lawyer (and clearly a team of researchers) that presents documented references from the period when the 2nd amendment was being drafted and adopted.

The pedantic hammer of his argument, nailing down every comma and period of the amendment to once and for all silence debate on the intention of the founding fathers while also subscribing to the clearly intrinsic belief that that is it--end of story--never revisit this idea again.

The book will validate the arguments of passionate 2nd amendment defenders and give them additional "ammunition" to argue their constitutional rights to own and carry anywhere whatever guns they want.

I have doubts that if documentation were discovered that added gray areas to the author's argument that they would have been included. This was a mission for verification and validation.

There are also other areas where the author skips over founding fathers intent:
people refers to men; those who do not have the right to bear arms are slaves; the purpose of the right to bear arms is to protect from the tyranny of government.

The author's very pedantic and lawyerly definition of PEOPLE does NOT limit the definition to legal citizens of the United States. In fact this book could be used as a strong argument for undocumented immigrants to arm and defend themselves against the tyranny of ICE and imminent deportation.

My frustration with the book is less about the ferocity of defense for the right to bear arms than a frustration with strict constitutionalists in general.

This experiment in democracy, the Republic of the United States was created with a constitution that was meant to be implemented with checks and balances anticipating such a long lived existence that amendments would be needed to take into account information and ideals that were not yet adopted.

Debate is supposed to continue. The amendment process should continue, as needed, per the will of the PEOPLE.

Nothing in this book convinced me that the founding fathers would be against centralized gun registries, background checks or waiting periods when purchasing firearms. Nor am I convinced that the right to bear arms includes every type of militarized weaponry possible.

The book clearly shows why gun rights advocates should NOT get sucked into fears that those measures are the slippery slope to taking away their guns and right to carry them. That will take a constitutional amendment. That not only is a long process, but one that requires a 2/3 vote by the people--it's not something that can happen by presidential decree or a party's platform of intent. Paranoia that Hillary is coming to get their guns was more manipulation than fact.

Ironically it just might be the zealous "take no hostages" approach to the right to bear arms, the appalling ferocity of violence inflicted by technological advancements in firearms that could lead to an amendment that reverses or repeals the 2nd amendment.

[Drew Danko · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you are looking for a serious treatment of the second amendment here it is. The author thoroughly researched the subject. I entered the book hoping for answers to questions raised from all the debate currently inflicting us. For the most part the author answered them. It would be hard for anyone to argue against his support for a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment; his references well establish what the founders' original intent and meaning were.

But some things still trouble me. Given the author's anti-gun regulation bias I had to wonder if any references contradicting his point of view were omitted.

Also, I wish he would have extended his analysis into the present and given us the benefit of his expertise. The founders thoughts and writings were massively influenced by: their history of abuses under a monarchial form of government,distrust of those still loyal to a monarchy, strong philosophical differences between the Republicans and the Federalists,and legitimate physical threats from Indians, British troops and slaves. So is it any wonder they believed that carrying and bearing arms was a natural right. These were also the leaders whose sense of danger and distrust was so high they frequently denounced the need for a standing army and instead opted for state militias to defend against not only England, but any tyrannical attempts by their own government. So given this context the second amendment makes sense, but does it still make sense to accept the founders original intent and meaning in 2013 where the level of gun violence, the proliferation of guns and the lethality of the guns is way beyond anything the founders could have conceived?.

[Marc · Rating 5 out of 5]

No one can make a truly informed decision about the 2nd Amendment, guns rights/control, weapons possession/use, and self-defense without reading this book. An astounding opus. It should be required reading for every American citizen.

[Bob · Rating 1 out of 5]

Stephen P. Halbrook spent over 300 pages justifying and analysis of the Second Amendment that supports the view that it provides a Constitutional right to individuals. His work is reminiscent of Scalia's argument in the Heller decision. In both cases, as clarified by Michael Waldman in his work, these arguments ignore the writings of the authors of the Constitution and of the Second Amendment while contending to base their analysis on the "original intent" of these men. For example, Halbrook, line Scalia, relied in definitions taken from dictionaries of the time to demonstrate what the authors of the Constitution had to mean by the words they chose to express their ideas. If Halbrook and Scalia had actually read the writing of Adams and Jefferson on this subject, along with the notes of the proceedings of the constitutional debates, rather than relying on Daniel Webster, they would have come to a very different finding. I did not find this argument compelling based on Waldman's excellent critique.

[Steve Moran · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent look at the Founder's and Framer's views on the Second Amendment. This should put paid to any of those revisionists who argue that to keep and bear arms is not an individual right and those who think the militia portion obviates the individual right.

[Les Andrews · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book on the founding fathers and their intentions of the 2nd Amendment. I learned a lot from this book and am considering picking up a few of his other books Halbrook wrote.

[Adam Huber · Rating 2 out of 5]

I like the book and learned a couple of things which is always great, however, I wish there was an abridged version.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Disclaimer: Long, thoughtful, politically incorrect post. Polite, constructive, thoughtful discussion welcomed.

Stephen Halbrook's "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms" is an amazing scholarly review of the origins of 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. Out of 450 total pages, this book has over 90 pages in citations alone. For any one participating on either side of the "gun" debate today, this book in my opinion is required reading.

I admit, I like history. Especially U.S. history as it relates to the founding of the colonies, the revolutionary war, and the creation of the U.S. constitutional republic. This book describes life just prior to the revolutionary war and the oppression by the King of England. It also describes the discussions around the Bill Of Rights as they were not originally given in the U.S. Constitution but were demanded by the people at large.

What I learned:
- The text of the 2nd Amendment is to be read in two parts. The first half of the sentence preceding the comma is a politically declarative thought; the second half after the comma is an actionable statement as to what the government can never do.
- The militia was always referred to as the people at large (aka the general citizenry). Standing armies were viewed as a threat to liberty. Having an armed society was/is the best prevention to any threat and is to preserve liberty.
- Natural rights precede any government and are/were never granted by government. They are to be protected and never infringed.
- Due to the oppression by the King of England, a declaration of rights was demanded by the people of the colonies. Always included in this was the right to keep and bear arms for the natural right of self-defense from any person, persons/groups, and for hunting. "Game laws" were used to limit/subvert the rights of arms by the people.
- I agree with Thomas Jefferson in that the Bill of Rights did not go far enough to linguistically chain politicians and government down to make it difficult for the rights to be infringed upon.
- Considering the Bill of Rights discussion, I would like to find another book which goes through the entire history of Bill of Rights from each of the colonies and the debates on each side.

To my friends who are on both sides of this issue, this is a *must* read. You are doing all a dis-service by not reading.

[Vladimir · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are a lot of sources and quotes in this book. It's fun enough to read through them, but most of it can be skipped unless you're eager to engage in an argument on the subject and need material. This reinforced my view that the 2nd isn't complicated unless somebody makes it out to be for the sake of advancing their agenda. Specifically, the 2nd becomes more difficult to understand if it is misused to define the relationship between the federal or state governments and the militia. That is done within the list of enumerated powers. It's an individual right that shall not be infringed, easy peasy.

p189,there's a reference to this quote:
"Give about two of them [hours:] every day to exercise; for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun."
The UVA gyms have Thomas Jefferson's quote about two hours of exercise written on the wall, but I've never seen any mention of the gun.

[Paige Gordon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a very in-depth discourse with TONS of sources combining to paint an accurate picture of what the Founding Fathers meant by the wording of the Second Ammendment. Contrary to what some people will try and tell you, they meant exactly what they wrote - the people have a right to own and carry firearms and ANY infringment that the government makes on that right is unconstitutional. This book is well worth reading if you would like to further educate yourself in order to refute the false statements so profilic in today's society. At the very least it is worth reading the finaly chapter "What Does the Second Ammendment Say?" as it is what the rest of the book builds up too by explaining the history of events before the Bill of Rights was ratified.
Overall an excellent read that I highly recommend.

[Jud Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

A brief for gun ownership as a private right. Has to explain why the Founders really didn't talk about it that much when writing their constitutions (state/federal). Some did, but for the most part--as the author says--this was accepted as part of a common law right to self-defense.

Therefore, the purpose of the state constitutions and the Second Amendment had more to do with assuring arms for a militia to provide for the defense of the nation or the state, as opposed to a standing army.

Militia duty as a civic duty was understood by most of the Founders as being a responsibility of the citizen. This "civic" understanding of the Second Amendment is much more clearly delineated by Saul Cornell in "A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America."

[Josh Dubs · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read a review that suggested that this book was a convincing defense of the Second Amendment, and I have to respectfully disagree.

Stephen Halbrook meticulously weaves the history of the Second Amendment, from the foment of the American Revolution to the Constitutional Convention and beyond in an almost completely unbiased fashion. In fact I was unable to glean any real opinion of the author until the last few pages of the text.

I do agree that this is not "light" reading, and if you're not reading it for a class on the subject, you are a glutton for punishment. While I certainly would recommend the book to anyone - particularly self-styled "experts" on either Constitutional law or the Second Amendment - I would caution any prospective reader to not expect a compelling story.

[Tony · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a tough read. It's a quite exhaustive study of the mentality of the founding fathers around the topic of guns. To finish the book, I had to really gut it out. But it's interesting in providing light to their thinking as well as the events around which the Second Amendment arose.

The Founding Fathers were paranoid of standing armies, which had been used to oppress them. For them, local militias were necessary for national defense.

There was also no effective police force preventing common crime. So they are regarded small arms as necessary to keep at home.

The book is also interesting in that it describes the overall process of ratifying the Constitution itself.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book reads like a lawyer's brief,which is not surprising given that Halbrook is one. Halbook amasses much information about the legal background to the Second Amendment. Very thorough, and many of the findings will need to be incorporated by both sides into the ongoing debate about the application of the Second Amendment today. Halbrook's legal findings are compelling but not exhaustive, and one gets a sense that he has not fully looked at the historical application of the Second Amendment.

[Wayne · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a great reference for understanding the origins of the Second Amendment. However, it's not a great read. Kind of long and boring. Read enough to gain confidence that the author has done thorough research and then skip to the last chapter.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Definitely not a thriller, but a serious and important book. Well researched and well documented. An excellent defense of the individual right to keep and bear arms. If you haven't read it, you don't know why the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights.

[Mills College Library]

344.73053 H1578 2012