The Second Amendment: The Framers Intentions
by Daniel J. Schultz
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.
The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.
To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."
As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."
It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.
It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.
In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.
George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.
By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."
Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).
The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.
It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.
This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.
This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."
This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.
This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."
It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."
ENDNOTES
1. In constitutional or statutory construction, language should always be accorded its plain meaning. See, e.g., Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 326 (1816).
2. "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 32.
3. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To raise and support Armies . . . ." U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 12.
4. Senate Subcommittee On The Constitution Of The Comm. On The Judiciary, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right To Keep And Bear Arms (Comm. Print 1982), at 5.
5. 3 J. Elliot, Debates In The Several State Conventions 380 (2d ed. 1836).
6. Originally published under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian," these "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution" first appeared in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, at 2, col. 1. They were reprinted by the New York Packet, June 23, 1789, at 2, cols. 1-2, and by the Boston Centennial, July 4, 1789, at 1, col. 2. The U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 83 L. Ed. 2d 1206, 59 S. Ct. 816 (1939), noted that the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the history and legislation of the colonies and states, and the writings of approved commentators showed that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense -- a body enrolled for military discipline.
7. 11 Papers Of James Madison 307 (R. Rutland & C. Hobson ed. 1977) (letter of Oct. 20, 1788, from Madison to Edmund Pendleton)(emphasis added).
8. An examination of the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights shows that they were designed, like the Second Amendment, to declare rights retained by the people (1-9), or the States (10), and to provide a clear list of powers not given to the national government: "Congress shall make no law . . . ." (Amendment I); "No soldier shall . . . ." (Amendment III); "The right of the people . . . shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue . . . ." (Amendment IV); "No person shall . . .; nor shall any person . . .; nor shall private property be taken . . . ." (Amendment V); "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy . . . ." (Amendment VI); "In Suits at common law . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States . . . ." (Amendment VII); "Excessive bail shall not be required . . . ." (Amendment VIII); "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Amendment IX); "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment X).
9. 3 J. Elliot, Debates In The General State Conventions 425 (3d ed. 1937) (statement of George Mason, June 14, 1788), reprinted in Levinson, The Embarassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. Rev. 637, 647 (1989). See supra note 6 and accompanying text.
10. Letters From The Federal Farmer To The Republican 123 (W. Bennet ed. 1978) (ascribed to Richard Henry Lee), reprinted in Levinson, supra note 9, at 647. See supra note 6 and accompanying text.
11. S. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, p. 83 (The Independent Institute, 1984).
12. U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) ("The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'....").
13. "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators." (Article I, Section 4); "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes . . . ." (Article I, Section 8, cl. 3); "The Congress shall have power . . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures . . . ." (Article I, Section 8, cl. 5); "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another." (Article I, Section 9); "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." (Article III, Section 2, cl. 2); "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." (Article IV, Section 2, cl. 3); "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular state." (Article IV, Section 3, cl. 2).
14. See supra, notes 6, 9 and 10 and accompanying text.
15. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following examples of usage for the term "well regulated": 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us . . . well-regulated Appetites, and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time . . . is the adjustment of the difference of time, as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Major." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well- regulated American embryo city." One definition of the word "well" in the Oxford English Dictionary is "satisfactorily in respect of conduct or action." One of The Oxford English Dictionary definitions for the term "regulated" is "b. Of troops: Properly disciplined." The one example of usage is: "1690: Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 'We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.'" The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989).
16. "The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions . . . ." U. S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 15.
17. "The Congress shall have Power . . . 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 . . . ." U.S. Const., Article I, Section 8, cl. 16.
18. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States . . . ." U.S. Const., Article II, Section 2, cl. 1.
19. U.S. Const., Preamble. ----- from: The "Well Regulated" Militia of the Second Amendment: An Examination of the Framers' Intentions, THE LIBERTY POLE V.II, No.2, The Official Publication of The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society.
Daniel J. Schultz is a practicing attorney in Los Angeles and President of LSAS, a nationwide network of pro-right to keep and bear arms attorneys. Contact the LSAS at (818)734-3066 or 18034 Ventura Boulevard, #329, Encino, CA 91316.
----- Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike. http://www.lectlaw.com
Google+
Originally posted here:
The Second Amendment: The Framers Intentions
- Federal Bills Introduced to Safeguard Second Amendment Rights During Government Shutdowns - NSSF | The Firearm Industry Trade Association - November 5th, 2025 [November 5th, 2025]
- Why the political arguments used by conservatives to twist the Second Amendment are a public fraud - Milwaukee Independent - November 5th, 2025 [November 5th, 2025]
- Save the Filibuster Save the Second Amendment - Gun Owners of America - November 5th, 2025 [November 5th, 2025]
- The Supreme Court Is More Interested in Second Amendment Cases Than Ever Before - The Trace - November 3rd, 2025 [November 3rd, 2025]
- SNL Weekend Update: Michael Che Says Government Still Aids Food Insecure Families Through Second Amendment After SNAP Cutoff - Deadline - November 3rd, 2025 [November 3rd, 2025]
- Supreme Court to weigh Second Amendment rights of cannabis users - inlander.com - November 3rd, 2025 [November 3rd, 2025]
- The Popular 3D-Printed Gun Globalizing the Second Amendment - Bloomberg - October 30th, 2025 [October 30th, 2025]
- The Future of the Second Amendment: A Nation Divided, Armed, and at a Crossroads - The Truth About Guns - October 30th, 2025 [October 30th, 2025]
- A warning to Florida public officials about the new open-carry law - Second Amendment Foundation - October 30th, 2025 [October 30th, 2025]
- Members Newsletter: Will SCOTUS Go Narrow in its New Second Amendment Cases? - The Reload - October 30th, 2025 [October 30th, 2025]
- I just took Everytowns online firearm training course - Second Amendment Foundation - October 28th, 2025 [October 28th, 2025]
- New Hampshire Bill Strengthening Second Amendment Rights on Public Property Advances - The Truth About Guns - October 26th, 2025 [October 26th, 2025]
- An Official Journal Of The NRA | Illegal Drugs and Second Amendment Rights - Americas 1st Freedom - October 23rd, 2025 [October 23rd, 2025]
- Supreme Court Will Weigh Gun Restrictions for Drug Users - The New York Times - October 23rd, 2025 [October 23rd, 2025]
- The Right to Bear Technology: Americas Other Second Amendment - Andreessen Horowitz - October 23rd, 2025 [October 23rd, 2025]
- Supreme Court adds another gun case to the docket, over drug use and the Second Amendment - MSNBC News - October 23rd, 2025 [October 23rd, 2025]
- Supreme Court will consider case on Second Amendment rights of drug users - Yahoo - October 23rd, 2025 [October 23rd, 2025]
- Supreme Court will decide if 'habitual drug users' lose their gun rights under Second Amendment - The Spokesman-Review - October 23rd, 2025 [October 23rd, 2025]
- Supreme Court will consider case on Second Amendment rights of drug users - Fox News - October 21st, 2025 [October 21st, 2025]
- Why an American raised in Rhodesia reveres the Second Amendment - Second Amendment Foundation - October 21st, 2025 [October 21st, 2025]
- In yet another move against gun ownership, California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed Assembly Bill 1127 into law, triggering... - October 17th, 2025 [October 17th, 2025]
- Across the aisle: shootings, safety and the Second Amendment - The Muhlenberg Weekly - October 15th, 2025 [October 15th, 2025]
- Second Amendment auditors walking roads with rifle and body armor, Fla. cops say - Police1 - October 13th, 2025 [October 13th, 2025]
- The Second Amendment Holds More Weight Than Uncle Dicks Deer Stand - NSSF | The Firearm Industry Trade Association - October 11th, 2025 [October 11th, 2025]
- Supreme Court to hear Hawaii gun law case with Second Amendment implications - Baltimore Sun - October 11th, 2025 [October 11th, 2025]
- Our Next Debate: Would America Be Safer Without the Second Amendment? - The Free Press - October 9th, 2025 [October 9th, 2025]
- Fact Check Team: SCOTUS to hear Hawaii gun law case, potential impact on Second Amendment - The National Desk - October 9th, 2025 [October 9th, 2025]
- Second Amendment auditors walking Florida roads with AR-15 and body armor - Tampa Bay Times - October 9th, 2025 [October 9th, 2025]
- Fact Check Team: SCOTUS to hear Hawaii gun law case, potential impact on Second Amendment - KRCR - October 9th, 2025 [October 9th, 2025]
- Impac Mortgage : Discloses Execution of Second Amendment to Tax Benefits Preservation Rights Agreement and Execution of Amended and Restated Key... - October 9th, 2025 [October 9th, 2025]
- Supreme Court takes Second Amendment case challenging Hawaii gun law - Fox News - October 4th, 2025 [October 4th, 2025]
- Supreme Court takes case that could allow more guns in malls and restaurants - CNN - October 4th, 2025 [October 4th, 2025]
- Justices Take Up Second Amendment Case Over Hawaii's 'Affirmative Consent' Law - Law.com - October 4th, 2025 [October 4th, 2025]
- A different view on Second Amendment rights - thepress.net - October 4th, 2025 [October 4th, 2025]
- Second Amendment Roundup: Removal of Firearm Disabilities - inkl - October 2nd, 2025 [October 2nd, 2025]
- Pursuit Attractions and Hospitality, Inc. Enters into the Second Amendment to the Credit Agreement - MarketScreener - October 2nd, 2025 [October 2nd, 2025]
- Pass the CR, then fight with Truth , and the forgotten part of the second amendment. - Daily Kos - September 30th, 2025 [September 30th, 2025]
- Letters: What the Second Amendment really guarantees - NOLA.com - September 28th, 2025 [September 28th, 2025]
- The Correct Argument for the Second Amendment - The Stanford Review - September 25th, 2025 [September 25th, 2025]
- Letter to the Editor: Protect the Second Amendment - Bemidji Pioneer - September 25th, 2025 [September 25th, 2025]
- Supreme Court should revisit the Second Amendment - Wisconsin State Journal - September 21st, 2025 [September 21st, 2025]
- The Second Amendment Was Created to Put Down Slave Revolts - CounterPunch.org - September 19th, 2025 [September 19th, 2025]
- Charlie Kirks Shocking 2023 Gun Statement Goes VIRAL after Assassination | Defends Second Amendment - Oneindia - September 17th, 2025 [September 17th, 2025]
- Georgia Sheriff Calls Upon Citizens to Exercise Their Second Amendment Rights - Firearms News - September 17th, 2025 [September 17th, 2025]
- The Trump Administration's Half-Baked Plan to Disarm Transgender People Is Legally Bankrupt: Such a Gun Ban Is Not Authorized by Statute or Allowed by... - September 17th, 2025 [September 17th, 2025]
- Budget Committee Approves Ratification Bill on Second Amendment to EC-Bulgaria Financing Agreement under Recovery and Resilience Facility - - September 17th, 2025 [September 17th, 2025]
- Guns of Delusion: Who killed Charlie Kirk? America's Second Amendment obstinacy - The Times of India - September 13th, 2025 [September 13th, 2025]
- Charlie Kirks Murder Illustrates How the Second Amendment Is Swallowing the First - Slate - September 13th, 2025 [September 13th, 2025]
- Vaccines, the Second Amendment, and the Utah Supreme Court - Utah Public Radio - September 13th, 2025 [September 13th, 2025]
- Florida Court Strikes Down Open Carry Ban, Aligning Firearm Laws with Second Amendment - Hoodline - September 13th, 2025 [September 13th, 2025]
- Charlie Kirk's pro-Second Amendment stance revisited after shooting death - Daily Express US - September 13th, 2025 [September 13th, 2025]
- Florida touts big win for Second Amendment after court throws out open carry ban - Washington Examiner - September 13th, 2025 [September 13th, 2025]
- Second Amendment activists in shock as Charlie Kirk shot instead of just schoolchildren - The Beaverton - September 13th, 2025 [September 13th, 2025]
- Fact Check: Charlie Kirk once said some gun deaths 'worth it' in order to have Second Amendment - Yahoo News UK - September 11th, 2025 [September 11th, 2025]
- DeSantis announces 'Second Amendment' tax holiday, renews push for open carry of guns - The Northwest Florida Daily News - September 11th, 2025 [September 11th, 2025]
- Fact Check: Charlie Kirk once said some gun deaths 'worth it' in order to have Second Amendment - Yahoo News Canada - September 11th, 2025 [September 11th, 2025]
- Charlie Kirk once said some gun deaths 'worth it' in order to have Second Amendment - Snopes - September 11th, 2025 [September 11th, 2025]
- Charlie Kirk said "some gun deaths" were an acceptable cost for having Second Amendment gun rights - Daily Kos - September 11th, 2025 [September 11th, 2025]
- Medical Marijuana and the Second Amendment: Eleventh Circuit Revives Second Amendment Challenge to Federal Ban on Gun Ownership for Drug Users - JD... - September 11th, 2025 [September 11th, 2025]
- Charlie Kirks Pro-Gun, Second Amendment Comments Resurface After Fatal Shooting at UVU - Times Now - September 11th, 2025 [September 11th, 2025]
- Reader says protect Second Amendment rights, but reduce access to some firearms - San Antonio Express-News - September 11th, 2025 [September 11th, 2025]
- DeSantis announces 'Second Amendment' tax holiday, renews push for open carry of guns - Lakeland Ledger - September 11th, 2025 [September 11th, 2025]
- Charlie Kirk, shot dead in Utah, once said gun deaths are 'worth it' to save Second Amendment - Firstpost - September 11th, 2025 [September 11th, 2025]
- Florida will have a Second Amendment sales tax holiday. Here's what to know - Pensacola News Journal - September 9th, 2025 [September 9th, 2025]
- DeSantis announces 'Second Amendment' tax holiday, renews push for open carry of guns - yahoo.com - September 9th, 2025 [September 9th, 2025]
- Florida Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday begins, runs through end of the year - Floridas Voice - September 9th, 2025 [September 9th, 2025]
- Marylands Handgun Roster Board: a rubber stamp or assault on Second Amendment? - Baltimore Sun - September 6th, 2025 [September 6th, 2025]
- Tennessee joins other states on Second Amendment SCOTUS brief - WKRN News 2 - September 6th, 2025 [September 6th, 2025]
- Opinion: Bill 36-0144 Is an Unconstitutional and Racist Attack on the Second Amendment - The Virgin Islands Consortium - September 6th, 2025 [September 6th, 2025]
- Letter to the Editor: Americas Deadliest LoopholeThe Case Against the Second Amendment - Peachtree City Citizen - September 6th, 2025 [September 6th, 2025]
- Congressional Democrats Try to Stop AG Bondi from Restoring Ex-Offenders Second Amendment Rights - Cato Institute - September 5th, 2025 [September 5th, 2025]
- Understanding the Second Amendment commas and all - thepress.net - September 5th, 2025 [September 5th, 2025]
- In Louisiana, gun sales are promoted with Second Amendment tax break - Shreveport Times - September 3rd, 2025 [September 3rd, 2025]
- In Louisiana, gun sales are promoted with Second Amendment tax break - yahoo.com - September 3rd, 2025 [September 3rd, 2025]
- Cabinet Asks Parliament to Ratify Second Amendment to Recovery, Resilience Facility Financing Agreement with EC - - September 3rd, 2025 [September 3rd, 2025]
- Hunters get tax break during Louisianas Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday Sept. 57 - Unfiltered with Kiran - September 3rd, 2025 [September 3rd, 2025]
- Analysis: The Latest on Weed, Dangerousness, and the Second Amendment [Member Exclusive] - The Reload - September 1st, 2025 [September 1st, 2025]
- Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday recognized this weekend - WAPT - August 29th, 2025 [August 29th, 2025]
- Mississippis Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday set for this weekend - supertalk.fm - August 29th, 2025 [August 29th, 2025]
- Minneapolis shooting: Who is Brandon Herrera? Second Amendment activist named in now-deleted video of att - The Times of India - August 29th, 2025 [August 29th, 2025]