Lawyer advocates individual rights, argues against gun restrictions

A Northern Virginia lawyer who has argued against gun restrictions discussed his understanding of the Second Amendment using the words and thoughts of James Madison in honor of James Madison Week.

Last year during James Madison Week, the First Amendment was explored, and organizers decided each year the succeeding amendment would be discussed. Wilson Hall auditorium was opened last Thursday to examine the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment, the amendment that assures the right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment 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." Attorney Stephen Halbrook said he believes that it was the intention of this amendment to allow the people to own and carry firearms with little, if any, government regulation.

Halbrook said the Second Amendment was included in the constitutional amendments to safeguard America against tyranny. "The less you trust the people with arms the more you move towards totalitarianism," he said.

Halbrook used the examples of Nazi Germany … where the death penalty was received for gun possession. Halbrook quoted George Mason who said, "Disarming the people is the best way to enslave them."

Halbrook discussed Federalist Paper No. 46 written by James Madison. In this paper Madison said, "The ultimate authority resides in the people — the people are the ultimate army." Halbrook said that Madison believed the Second Amendment was important because if the government becomes too similar to a tyranny, the militia will revolt against the government.

Madison said the only reason gun control is an issue is because, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms, according to Halbrook.

Halbrook discussed the wording of the amendment to demonstrate the true meaning of the Second Amendment.  "The Second Amendment refers to the right of the people," he said. "States do not have rights; they have powers," thus it is not the domain of the state to deny the people of a right.

Halbrook also made a comparison between the Fifth and the Second amendments. Halbrook said that the Fifth Amendment provides for entitlement to be indicted by a grand jury except during times of war. Entitlement is the idea of not having to testify against yourself and the Fifth Amendment is about entitlement, but the Fifth Amendment carries with it an exception to the entitlement. Halbrook said that in the Second Amendment there is "no exception" and that it does not "distinguish the terms militia and people" apart from each other.

"Today there is the viewpoint that the Second Amendment does not protect the individual right to bear arms but the states' rights to maintain militia." Halbrook said because the amendment does not distinguish the militia from the people, this argument is obsolete.

"The most important thing to think about when debating contemporary issues is what does the constitution provide for," Halbrook said. If the government diverges from the Constitution once, it is not acceptable because it will happen again and, depending on who is in power, the Constitution will not be upheld, according to Halbrook. Although Halbrook said he understands that some believe this amendment is not relevant to society today, he feels that strict adherence to the Constitution's written word is necessary for successful government operation.

Students attending Halbrook's speech found him informative on the subject matter. 

"The speaker was very informative, and I was very impressed by the basis of his argument being a vast and accurate knowledge of history rather than regurgitating facts that are much overused," freshman Nick Perkinson said.

Freshman Linda Mak said, "His articulation reflected fundamental basis of gun control, backed by substantial evidence and history.

"The speaker was very interesting and his discussion on the right to bear arms is very appropriate following the aftermath of [Sept. 11]," Mak said.

Halbrook received his doctorate from Georgetown University and his bachelor's and graduate degrees from Florida State University.

Halbrook has worked as a professor of philosophy as well as his current occupation as an attorney specializing in Constitutional cases. As an attorney, Halbrook has won three out of three cases presented before the Supreme Court, including Printz v. United States which overturned the Brady Bill. The Brady Bill dealt with the issue of gun control.

Halbrook is the author of the books "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right" and "A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bill of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees."