Okay, first of all, of course, the Constitutional Convention has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, which was only created and talked about after the constitution was accepted. Most of the notes on the actual process and discussion seem to come from notes taken by James Madison. Saul K. Padover To Secure These Blessings: The Great Debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787; New York, Washington Square Press, 1962. It's about the Constitutional Convention, and does not go into the amendments. But it does (p. 204-208) include a discussion by the convention on militias vs. select militias vs. "a real military force." Max Farrand The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787; New Haven, Yale University Press, 1911. This is more about the Constitutional Convention than about the amendment process, but it does include discussion on the necessity of a bill of rights. In particular, in Vol. 3, p. 290, someone (I brainlessly forgot to jot down *who*) said "With respect to a bill of rights, had the government been formed upon principles tuly federal, as I wished it, legislating over and acting upon the states only in their collective or political capacity, and not as individuals, there would have been no need for a bill of rights, as far as related to the rights of individuals, but only as to the rights of the states. But the proposed constitution being intended and empowered to act not only on states, but also immediately on individuals, it renders a recognition and a stipulation in favour of the rights both of states and of men, not only proper, but in my opinion absolutely necessary." With regards to the adoption of the bill of rights, most of the discussion on the right to keep and bear arms focussed on the religious exemption, with a little discussion about the need (or lack of same) for a standing army. Bernard Schwartz The Bill of Rights: a documentary history New York, Chelsea House Publishers, 1971. The bill of rights was presented to Congress by Madison pretty much as accepted. They were sent to a select committee to hash out the details. The discussion of this committee with regards to what became the second amendment is on pages 1108 to 1109. Of interest is that the exemption for religious scruples seemed to imply that the federal government was *requiring* each individual to be armed, or that it was a duty at the very least. The members also discussed a standing army, with some members claiming that a standing army was absolutely essential, and if you can't trust a federal government, why create it? Annals of Congress, Volume 1, 1st Congress, 1st-2nd session, 1789-1790 This would seem to be a major source for actual discussion on the adoption of the bill of rights. It is not well indexed, and is just crying to be put on a CD-ROM. The discussion of the select committee is on pages 749-751. Discussion in the House, I think, is 765-757. One reason that the exemption for religious beliefs was taken out is that some folks believed that religion was on the downswing, and leaving the exemption in would allow unscrupulous individuals to get out of militia duty. The first 'regulation' of the militia is begun on page 1076, with a proposal from President Washington, for houw the militia could be effectively maintained. Books that I intend to look at tomorrow: AUTHOR Rutland, Robert Allen, 1922- TITLE The birth of the Bill of rights, 1776-1791. PUBLISHED New York, Collier Books [1962] DESCRIPT. 252 p. 18 cm. SER. NOTE Collier books, AS134. SUBJECT United States --Constitution --Amendments --1st AUTHOR St. John, Jeffrey. TITLE Forge of union, anvil of liberty : a correspondent's report on the first federal elections, the first federal Congress, and the Bill of Rights / Jeffrey St. John ; foreword by Warren E. Burger. PUBLISHED Ottawa, Ill. : Jameson Books, c1992. DESCRIPT. xxx, 288 p. ; 23 cm. AUTHOR Maclay, William, 1737-1804. TITLE Journal of William Maclay, United States senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791. Edited by Edgar S. Maclay, A.M. PUBLISHED New York, D. A. Appleton and company, 1890. DESCRIPT. xiv p., 1 L., 438 p. front. (port.) 23 cm. SUBJECT United States. Congress (1st : 1789-1791) United States --Politics and government --1789-1797. NOTE Originally issued, c1880, in abridged form under title, "Sketches of debate in the first Senate of the United States, in 1789-90- 91." ADD. AUTHOR Maclay, Edgar Stanton, 1863-1919. AUTHOR Boykin, Edward, 1889- TITLE The wit and wisdom of Congress; a treasury of anecdotes & epigrams, quips & puns, nuggets of historical debate & gems of eloquence, all handpicked from the annals of Congress, 1789 to the present. PUBLISHED New York, Funk & Wagnalls [1961] DESCRIPT. 420 p. 22 cm. SUBJECT United States. Congress --Anecdotes. And something that might be of interest to somebody, but not to me, is the only book that showed up for the history of the United States militia: AUTHOR Mahon, John K. TITLE History of the militia and the National Guard / John K. Mahon. PUBLISHED New York : Macmillan ; London : Collier Macmillan, c1983. DESCRIPT. 374 p., [16] p. of plates : ill. ; 25 cm. SER. NOTE The Macmillan wars of the United States. SERIES Macmillan wars of the United States. SUBJECT United States --Militia --History. United States --National Guard --History. NOTE Bibliography: p. 323-356. Includes index. Okay, here's the last promised 'installment.' From United States Code Annotated Constitution Amendments 1 to 4 West Publishing Co. 1972 Amendment II-Right to Bear Arms Notes of Decisions Construction Particular regulatory schemes Power to regulate Purpose Right to keep and bear arms This is not complete; I took out most of the ones that talk about how it only limits the Federals and not the States, as well as anything for felons. 1. Construction In interpreting and applying this amendment, purpose of amendment to assure continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the militia must be considered. U.S. v. Miller, Ark.1939, 59 S.Ct. 816, 307 U.S. 174, 83 L.Ed. 1206. The preservation of the public peace and the protection of the people against violence are constitutional duties of the legislature, and the guarantee of right to keep and bear arms is to be understood and construed in connection and in harmony with these constitutional duties. State v. Dawson, 1968, 159 S.E.2d 1, 272 N.C. 535. The arms referred to in this amendment are the arms used in defending the state and civil liberty and not pistols, bowie knives, brass knuckles, billies, and such other weapons as are usually employed in brawls, street fights, duels, and affrays, and are only habitually carried by bulies, blackguards, and desperadoes, to the terror of the community and the injury of the state. State v. Workman, 1891, 14 S.E. 137, 35 W.Va. 367, 14 L.R.A. 508. The word "arms," in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense; the arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms. English v. State, 1872, 35 Tex. 476 This clause declares a general right, leaving it for other more specific constitutional provision or to legislation to provide for the preservation and practical security of such right, and for influencing and governing the judgment and conscience of all legislators and magistrates, who are thus required to recognize and respect such rights. Opinion of Justices, 1859, 14 Gray, Mass. 620. 2. Purpose The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred on the people by the federal constitution, and the only function of this amendment precluding infringement of right of people to keep and bear arms is to prevent the federal government, and the federal government only, from infringing that right. Cases v. U.S., C.C.A.Puerto Rico 1942, 131 F.2d 916, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct. 1431, 319 U.S. 770, 87 L.Ed. 1718, rehearing denied 65 S.Ct. 1010, 324 U.S. 889, 89 L.Ed. 1437. 3. Right to keep and bear arms. The right of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" is not a right granted by the Constitution nor is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. U. S. v. Cruikshank, La.1875, 92 U.S. 553, 2 Otto 553, 23 L.Ed. 588. Constitutional right to keep and bear arms applies only to the right of the state to maintain militia and not to individual's right to bear arms. Stevens v. U. S., C.A.Ky.1971, 440 F.2d 144. In absence of some showing that possession or use of sawed- off shotgun bore some reasonable relationship to preservation or efficiency of well regulated militia, constitutional provision relating to right of citizens to bear arms did not guarantee defendant the right to keep and bear such sawed-off shotgun. U. S. v. Casson, D.C.Del1968, 288 F.Supp. 86. Right of individual to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed. Hutchinson v. Rosetti, 1960, 205 N.Y.S.2d 526, 24 Misc.2d 949. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by this amendment. Application of Cassidy, 1944, 51 N.Y.S.2d 202, 268 App.Div. 282, reargument denied 63 N.Y.S.2d 840, 270 App.Div. 1046, affirmed 73 N.E.2d 41, 296 N.Y. 926. This amendment created no right to bear arms which right long antedated the adoption of this Constitution. Moore v. Gallup, 1943, 45 N.Y.S.2d 63, 267 App.Div. 64 affirmed 59 N.E.2d 439, 293 N.Y. 846, motion granted 60 N.E.2d 439, 293 N.Y. 846, motion granted 60 N.E.2d 847, 294 N.Y. 699. This amendment does not apply to municipal legislation, nor assure privilege of any individual to keep arms. Photos v. City of Toledo, 1969, 250 N.E.2d 916, 19 Ohio Misc. 147. Right to bear arms does not apply to private citizens as an individual right. Harris v. State, 1967, 432 P.2d 929, 83 Nev. 404, 30 A.L.R.3d 1412. Any statute or construction of common-law rule which would amount to a destruction of right to bear arms would be unconstitutional. State v. Dawson, 1968, 159 S.E.2d 1, 272 N.C. 535. 4. Power to regulate Right to keep and bear arms is not right conferred on people by Federal Constitution, but rather, such Constitution prevents federal government, and federal government only, from infringing that right. Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, D.C.Pa.1971, 329 F.Supp. 845. Though governed by this amendment, Congress may regulate interstate firearms so long as regulation does not impair the maintenance of the active, organized militias of the states. Burton v. Sills, 1968, 248 A.2d 521, 53 N.J. 86, 28 A.L.R.3d 829, appeal dismissed 89 S.Ct. 1486, 394 U.S. 812, 22 L.Ed.2d 748. A gun control regulation which does not impair maintenance of state's active, organized militia is not in violation of either the terms or the purposes of this amendment. Brown v. City of Chicago, 1969, 250 N.E.2d 129, 42 Ill.2d 501. Right of individuals to bear arms is not absolute, but is subject to regulation. State v. Dawson, 1968, 159 S.E.2d 1, 272 N.C. 535. 5. Particular regulatory schemes National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.A. [I. R.C.1939] §§ 2720- 2733, 3260-3263, did not violate this amendment in absence of showing of any reasonable relationship between such weapons and a well-regulated militia. U. S. v. Miller, Ark.1939, 59 S.Ct. 816, 307 U.S. 174, 83 L.Ed. 1206. 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 5861 and 5871, proscribing offense of and penalty for possession of an unregistered firearm, are not violative of right to bear arms as guaranteed by this amendment. U. S. v. Williams, C.A.Tex. 1971, 446 F.2d 486. Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C.A. § 921 et seq., does not violate this amendment guarantee. U. S. v. Lauchli, C.A.Ill. 1971, 444 F.2d 1037. While this amendment does not prevent enactment of a law against carrying concealed weapons, in construing such a statute it should be kept in mind that it is aimed at persons of criminal instincts and for the prevention of crime and not against the use of weapons in protection of person or property. People v. Liss, 1950, 94 N.E.2d 320, 406 Ill. 419. Journal of William Maclay 1789-1791 May 5, 1790: "The assumption of State debts having failed, every other thing that can be thought of will be brought forward to increase the volume of the national debt.... In fact, to overwhelm us with debt is the endeavor of every creature in office, for fear, as there is likely to be no war, that if there should be no debt to be provided for there would be no business for the general government with all their train of officers." May 1, 1789: "After the House adjourned the Vice-President took me to one side, declared how much he was for an efficient Government, how much he respected General Washington, and much of that kind. I told him I would yield to no person in respect to General Washington; that our common friends would perhaps one day inform him that I was not wanting in respect to himself [Adams]; that my wishes for an efficient Government were as high as any man's, and I begged him to believe that I did myself great violence when I opposed him in the chair, and nothing but a sense of duty could force me to it. He got on the subject of checks to government and the balances of power. His tale was long. He seemed to expect some answer. I caught at the last word, and said undoubtedly without a balance there could be no equilibrium, and so left him hanging in geometry." I didn't manage to find anything in here about the right to keep and bear arms. I didn't even manage to find the "passing reference" to the Bill of Rights mentioned in the book below. (These books are in different libraries, so I've been unable to double check.) The Birth of the Bill of Rights, 1776-1791 Timeframe of Bill of Rights: Madison announced his intention of introducing the subject of amendments on May 25, 1789. This was "3 months after" congress was scheduled to begin its session. Representatives really seemed to consider this a boring bit of legislation, and unimportant, to the point where they kept putting it off. Madison wanted a Committee of the Whole, but it was given to a special committee, for recommendations. This was on July 21, six weeks after it was first discussed, and when Madison finally re-introduced it to the House. The special committee consisted of John Vining of Delaware, Madison, Roger Sherman. The report was presented to the House a week later and tabled. Again, it seems as though they felt there were far more important things to discuss. But it was debated for "over a week" in the Committee of the Whole, and forwarded to the Senate on August 24, as 17 proposed amendments. The Senate discussed it on September 2. Twelve amendments remained, and it was sent back to the House. Maclay mentions the Bill of Rights on page 131 of his book, but only in passing. p. 217 The House took up the proposed changes on September 19, 1789, and decided that they'd better create a joint conference of the Senate and House. The committee consisted of: House: Madison, Sherman, Vining Senate: Oliver Ellsworth, Charles Carroll, William Paterson. By September 25, both houses had approved the twelve amendments. They were forwarded to the President for transmission to the states. The Senate debated in private, so the only place you'll find that is in journals, I'd suspect. The House debates were carried in the Congressional Record (which was a private enterprise then; I don't know if it still is or not). And added for your amusement: Amendment III-Soldiers Denied Quarter in Homes Notes of Decisions 1. Nature of right This amendment's prohibition against unconsented peacetime quartering of soldiers protects one aspect of privacy from governmental intrusion. Katz v. U. S., Cal.1967, 88 S.Ct. 507, 389 U.S. 347, 19 L. Ed.2d 576. The Housing and Rent Act of 1947, 50 U.S.C.A.App., former § 1881 et seq., did not violate this amendment, on ground that it was an incubator and hatchery of swarms of bureaucrats to be quartered as storm troopers on the people. U. S. v. Valenzuela, D.C.Cal.1951, 95 F.Supp. 363. The right to smoke marijuana is not fundamental to the American scheme of justice necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and is not within "zone of privacy" formed by penumbras of this amendment, and Amends. 1, 5 and 9. Com. v. Leis, 1969, 243 N.E.2d 898, 355 Mass. 189. In regards to the quote from Max Farrand's Records, about the need for a Bill of Rights, it was Luther Martin, Baltimore, March 19, 1788. Jerry [j--r--y] at [teetot.acusd.edu] (Finger/Reply for PGP Public Key) ------ "There's a storm out on the ocean; God bless the ships at sea. There's a storm down in my lover's heart, Oh, God bless me." -- Nanci Griffith, Storms