Is the US "a free state" ?

[hansberrym]

When considering the claim that since DC is not a state, the Second Amendemnt does not apply to DC , one ought to seek to understand what the framers meant by "a free state".


From Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance(1785):
"We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. " (my emphasis in boldface)

Was Madison referring to Virginia as “a free state” in the sense that the commonwealth was one of the states of the Union under the Articles of Confederation? Or was he characterizing Virginia as “a free state” meaning a non-tyrannical government in which citizens were able, and duty bound, to defend their rights against dangerous abuses of power by the government?

The answer to that question is found in the list of reasons that Madison gives for opposing the Bill for establishing a provision for teachers of the Christian Religion –the first of which concerns the protection of an individual’s right to worship as his own conscience directs and includes Madison’s observation that the will of the Majority sometimes tresspasses on the rights of the minority. Thus the concern is not merely for the freedom of action of the “state” or the “government” but for the freedom of the individual in relation to government.

"Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority"



Returning to the Second Amendemnt, one could, as a thought experiment, try adding the words “of the union” following "free state":

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state of the union , the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Is the meaning retained?
What function would the word “free” have in that sentence?
Would it act to limit security to only “free” states?
Which states of the Union were not free?

Did the framers believe that "a well regulated militia" was necessary only to "free states" of the union, or did they hold that belief as a general proposition, and assume that the Union was a "free state" in the sense that Madison earlier used the phrase in Memorial and Remonstronce ?

[ixion]

1. no, not free...we've become a glorified prison colony

in my opinion.

[deadlikeme13]

9. We have so many laws the cops dont know all of them. Prison is not a nice place.

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

2. Yes it is.

[TygrBright]

3. Free of what? n/t

[hansberrym]

6. Exactly. n/t

[jmg257]

4. Yes. I originally thought "state" was like NY, NJ, etc. But because

the observation made in the militia clause is a general observation about militia(use of "a" instead of "the"), because the original article proposed was "the best security of a free country", and because the framers used the term "state" generally to represent a govermental unit:

"...This is the case of our new Federal Constitution. This instrument forms us into one State as to certain objects and gives us a legislative and executive body for these objects. It should therefore guard against their abuses of power within the field submitted to them." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

I am now convinced the "free State" is used to represent the United States. And because "the people" are the same "we the people OF THE UNITED STATES" as in the preamble, those people whose right is secured in the 2nd are ALL the people of the United States.

[hansberrym]

5. There are so many instances of such usage that it ought to be open and shut.

Aside from the fact that the word "free" has no relevance if one assumes that the reference in the first clause is to a state of the the Union rather than a hypothetical polity, the ease at which one can find usage consistent with a hypothetical ought to put the matter to rest.

I hadn't seen the one you posted so I'll add that to my list. Here's another.

Fed. 29:
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union ``to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. (my emphasis)


Hamilton refers to "the states respectively" clearly meaning the individual states of the Union. But in this same essay he also speaks of the national government in various terms (in boldface) including "The State"

[SteveM]

7. The 14th Amendment seems to play a role, here...

The 14th Amendment defines a U.S. citizen and then goes on to say "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..." This, of course, stopped states from abridging the rights of blacks and others when those states said that any rights a U.S. citizen has are not necessarily applicable to citizens of a state. There seems to be an inverse to this: where a U.S. citizens has his/her rights abridged by an entity (Washington, D.C.) which is not a state, but is in effect governed by the U.S., then those citizens are guaranteed the Constitution's protections "directly." In other words, no need to argue the 14th Amendment.

While such an interpretation is not the best in the world, because rights guaranteed by the Constitution do not allow for day-to-day governance of D.C., it would seems a possible plausible interpretation for the predicament D.C. finds itself in with regards Heller.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

8. No.

Not after the patriot act and the way that we have handed our rights over to the repukes to control us.

We arent free anymore.

Reminds me a lot of a book we used in one of my history classes:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html