Conscientious Objection and the 2nd Amendment
The U.S. Supreme Court is due to hear arguments this Tuesday over the Second Amendment in connection with a District of Columbia handgun ban.
The Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate back in 1789, reads: 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 Amendment has been the subject of ongoing debate over the right to own weapons and attempts to place limit gun ownership. The current case may help to clear up some of the issues involved in interpreting the Amendment, though given the history of the issue, that is unclear.
From an historical point of view, however, there was an earlier version of what became the Second Amendment that, if it had been approved, would have proven beneficial to those promoting non-violence. It also helps to reveal the long history of opposition to war in this nation.
The original version of the Amendment introduced to the House back in 1789 read:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
That last clause - but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person – was intended to allow for those who objected to war for moral reasons. Members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) had had a long history of opposition to war, including the Revolutionary War. There were other groups and individuals who objected to war as well. Some of those objectors suffered fines, prison, and loss of property due to their opposition.
If that version of the Amendment had been approved, it would have helped conscientious objectors to better make their cases.
The Amendment was revised to read: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
It was further modified and passed by the House in this form: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
That version was sent to the Senate. The Senate ultimately changed to the form we know, dropping the conscientious objector clause.
Milton Metzler, in his 1985 history of refusing military service in the U.S., Ain’t Gonna Study War No More, pointed out that the vote to delete the conscientious objector clause was just 24 to 22.
Had just two votes changed, conscientious objectors would have had clear Constitution grounds for arguing that they had a right NOT to bear arms.
The Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate back in 1789, reads: 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 Amendment has been the subject of ongoing debate over the right to own weapons and attempts to place limit gun ownership. The current case may help to clear up some of the issues involved in interpreting the Amendment, though given the history of the issue, that is unclear.
From an historical point of view, however, there was an earlier version of what became the Second Amendment that, if it had been approved, would have proven beneficial to those promoting non-violence. It also helps to reveal the long history of opposition to war in this nation.
The original version of the Amendment introduced to the House back in 1789 read:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
That last clause - but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person – was intended to allow for those who objected to war for moral reasons. Members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) had had a long history of opposition to war, including the Revolutionary War. There were other groups and individuals who objected to war as well. Some of those objectors suffered fines, prison, and loss of property due to their opposition.
If that version of the Amendment had been approved, it would have helped conscientious objectors to better make their cases.
The Amendment was revised to read: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
It was further modified and passed by the House in this form: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
That version was sent to the Senate. The Senate ultimately changed to the form we know, dropping the conscientious objector clause.
Milton Metzler, in his 1985 history of refusing military service in the U.S., Ain’t Gonna Study War No More, pointed out that the vote to delete the conscientious objector clause was just 24 to 22.
Had just two votes changed, conscientious objectors would have had clear Constitution grounds for arguing that they had a right NOT to bear arms.
posted by A Secular Franciscan | 4:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home