The SECOND Amendment: The Right to BEAR ARMS [AP Gov Review Unit 3 Topic 5 (3.5)]

AP HEIMLER REVIEW GUIDE (formerly known as the Ultimate Review Packet):

Additional HEIMLER REVIEW GUIDES (formerly known as Ultimate Review Packet):

Tiktok: @steveheimler
Instagram: @heimlers_history

In this video Heimler walks you through everything you need to know about Unit 3 Topic 5 of the AP Government curriculum, which is all about the second amendment's protection of the right to bear arms.

The wording of the second amendment has been hotly debated, especially regarding the first clause about militias. Even so, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled, first in Heller v. District of Columbia and then in McDonald v. Chicago, that the Second Amendment does indeed protect an individual's right to own a gun.

[loganviator]

I always recommend your videos to my students. Always swift, top-notch, explanations of the topics! Keep on keepin' on, man!

[snackbar]

Keep up the APgov videos! Need em for this year haha

[skinimus]

and now the text, history and tradition of the 2nd Amendment are the single level of scrutiny by which gun control must be measured for constitutionality.

[frankl]

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story,  Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

[matthewemmick]

It makes NO logical sense to protect "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms" without it actually protecting "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms."

Even if 2a didn't protect an "individual" right (ridiculous), the federal government STILL wouldn't have the power to infringe on private individuals ownership of firearms, because no such power was ever granted... therefore it would still be a protected right under the 9th amendment, and in a way the 10th as well.

Plus 45/50 states protect the right to keep and bear arms.
(PA Article 1, Section 21 states: "The right of CITIZENS to bear arms (supposed "military term only") in defense of THEMSELVES and the state shall not be questioned."
This was 1790 as well..

This is the most maddening argument of all time.

[aolvaar]

Not EVERY State,

Vermont constitution, Chapter 1, Article 16

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty,
they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

[shadrackgore]

What program do you use to create your videos?

[jkibbles]

You mention that the 2nd Amendment wasn't created in a vacuum, but fail to mention what the people who wrote it believed about militias and about the individual ownership of arms. The statements of the founding fathers negate the argument that they were trying to tie firearms ownership to formal membership in militias. To paraphrase George Mason, the people are the militia. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, all affirmed the right of the individual to own firearms.

[frankl]

And those that point to other countries for guidance know little history..."Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster,  An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

[wyattbreymeyer]

heres the thing, every male over the age of 18 has to sign up for selective service, which means that we could be called at anytime, easy as cake to get rid of 2a, get rid of the selected service program

[SGCXD]

You’re neglecting several state constitutions that say specifically the right to keep and bear arms is an individuals right and particularly for self defense and is not particularly for or a limitation to service in a militia at the time of the founding. The phrase “well regulated” means properly armed, supplied, and trained. It does not mean to be regulated by laws. The first phrase is a declaration of why the 2A is so important and not some narrow limitation. The second amendment is specifically for individuals to keep arms at home and to bare or carry them about in public. It’s also important to note that the military legally has no policing power against citizens and also that police in every state have absolutely no legal obligation to defend or protect any individual of the public. Besides that, when you have just seconds left to live.. the police are just minutes away.

[benjamintiradogarcia]

Is it true that if Congress were to change this amendment, they would need to revise the entire Bill of Rights because all 10 amendments were passed as 1- as in having 1 vote to pass them all?

[IJS]

All you need to do is read Letters and documents from our founding fathers

[hasgunwilltravel]

Every living being is equal (human or animal) therefore I believe what any person (government or individual) can do, or own, all beings should be able. If you interpret it any other way you can not honestly believe all lives are equal, and believe in living under others you deem more important.

[니모-bw]

Moore Jennifer Hall Joseph Allen Christopher

[CodyCoonrod]

Could the federal government still pass federal gun control regulation even with these amendments?

[linamarie]

It's not a Dang question! It's not debatable! It's not debatable! Stop making it like it is!

[니모-bw]

Jones Margaret Rodriguez Helen Harris Jessica

[rklanke]

Nothing new here, it's the same old mistakes about history.

1. The Constitution, Article I Section 8 and Article II Section 2 describe the relationship between the new federal government with the existing militias of the new states.
2. To gain the Anti-Federalist approval of the Constitution, an additional set of limits upon the powers of the federal government would be added. The First Congress drafted twelve laws, of which ten were approved and came to be known as the (American) Bill of Rights.
3. One such limitation was that the new federal government would not interfere with, over step its Constitutional authority, or absorb the militias of the states. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." is the first thing voters would have seen. Voters would know what was being protected.

It's the militia that's being protected.

It's that simple. As the Heller decision said, the so-called "prefatory clause" (the first half of the sentence, including the reference to the militia) announces the purpose of the Second Amendment. The Heller decision then proceeds to ignore that purpose and ignore the rest of the Constitution. We are to believe that those who read the law that would become the Second Amendment skipped the context of the Constitution and skipped the first half of the sentence. That left them with a statement that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That statement refers to a right. The Heller decision states that this right would exist without the Second Amendment. The second half of the second Amendment refers to a right and says it shall not be infringed. What is the law, though? What would that law prohibit or permit? It would be unusual for Madison to add excess verbiage that should be ignored and it would be uncharacteristic for Madison to write a law that did not include a context.

The Heller decision of 2008 marks the first time the Supreme Court found a law that offended the Second Amendment. In over 200 years, the Second Amendment had extremely little case law. After the Heller decision, we have a flurry of decisions which leveraged the Heller decision and the 14th Amendment's due process clause to reject a growing number of laws. This should at least raise eyebrows.

It's the militia. There just haven't been many instances of the Federal government interfering with the militia. When the Oklahoma National Guard refused to vaccinate in defiance of the Army, that could have made an interesting Second Amendment case.

By the way, the first half of the Second Amendment is not a prefatory clause, and the second half is not an operative clause. A prefatory clause is something like "by the way." A prefatory clause can be removed from the sentence without changing the meaning of the sentence. The Heller decision relies upon your acceptance of their misrepresentation of syntax dictating semantics to explain justify skipping the first half of the sentence even though, as the Heller decision says, it states the purpose of the Second Amendment. This maneuver is known as "sophistry."

The Second Amendment is not about guns. It is about the militia.