The first state to adopt such language was Pennsylvania, which did so as part of its constitutional provision addressing military matters:

Other state constitutions proceeded to adopt variations of either the Virginia or Pennsylvania models. The states which included "right to bear arms" language did so in the context of provisions dealing with military matters.

...Thus, there is no indication from the history of the 2nd Amendment that the Founders were seeking a broad guarantee of the individual right to own firearms for any purpose. On the contrary, the expressed intention of the framers was to guarantee that state militias remained armed and viable, and the "right to keep and bear arms" must be understood as implementing that purpose. The implication of this intention is that the constitutionality of a statute regulating firearms should turn on whether the statute affects firearms in such a way as to adversely affect a state’s ability to raise and maintain an armed "well-regulated militia."

Only one other state reproduced Pennsylvania’s language -- Vermont. Nonetheless, Miller criticizes textbook authors’ descriptions of state governments if they failed to mention that Pennsylvania was the first state to guarantee a right to bear arms. At best, such criticism is overboard; at worst, it is, itself, a politicized distortion of history.

"The people of the state have the sole exclusive and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same." If you try and substitute "individual right" in there it doesn't make any sense. That, obviously, is a collective right.

The Federalists hoped to build a Federal government stronger than its predecessor, and that the Second Amendment -- again, Prof. Cornell has done a terrific job, I think, explaining this -- the Second Amendment must be placed within that historical context, the effort of this first government to survive.

They were not writing the suicide pact. They were not writing a constitution which gave over to the body of the people an insurrectionary right… that the people have a right to individual firearms ownership so that they can, when necessary, overthrow the government.

This is, in the context of the origins of the American Republic, insane. But more importantly -- it is an error to think that the anti-federalists favored an individual right to gun ownership. And they were the losers. But I think what's even more important in all this is that there is a legislative track record here. There are statute laws, there are court decisions through the antebellum period which tells us precisely how the framers of the Constitution and their immediate successors thought of the right to bear arms and what its nature was. James Madison himself, in presenting the Second Amendment -- why isn't this quoted more often -- in presenting the Second Amendment to Congress, said that what he feared most were the common people, that what we need to do is strengthen the Federal government. That was his understanding of the Second Amendment. It was being introduced in this context.

To be very precise, he said, "The greatest danger to our republic lies not in the executive branch, but mainly in the body of the people operating by the majority against the minority." He then goes on to insist that the Second Amendment must be understood within the context of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives the Federal government control over the militia. That's Madison. He wrote it. He must have known what he was talking about.

Let's give a few examples. In the 70 years immediately after ratification of the Second Amendment gun laws were passed in every state. Every state regulated gun ownership. They regulated the quality of firearms, the quantity of munitions that could be produced, where they could be stored.

Boston was not alone in forbidding the carrying of or keeping a loaded firearm even in your own home. It was seen to be very unsafe. Most states had a Concealed Weapons Act, which are the opposite of our Concealed Weapons Acts… No one, not even police officers, were allowed to carry concealed weapons in most states. Even the western territories in the years prior to the Civil War had Concealed Weapons Acts. Police in Oklahoma were not allowed to carry guns under any circumstances except for when they were on duty in Oklahoma territory. In Washington territory they had laws, like most territories, against the display of firearms. To even show one in public was illegal and was prosecuted. These laws were enforced. There are laws about the storage, the sale, and the maintenance of firearms.

And most importantly, of course, there were laws forbidding Catholics from carrying firearms. You have all heard of the Know Nothing Party, right? They won in lots of states. The first thing they did was disarm Catholic militias. There was no violent opposition to this disarming.

There were laws that clarified which religion and which races could own firearms. Black people, slave or free, in most states in the United States were not allowed to own guns. Individual right? Define "individual." If it includes every person living in the United States, it doesn't apply. Are we talking only about those people who have civic rights? Then why can't Catholics own guns?

13. - 1. Relates to religious freedom; the liberty of the press; the right of the people to assemble and petition.

14. - 2. Secures to the people the right to bear arms.

21. - 9. Secures to the people the rights retained by them.

22.- 10. Secures the rights to the states, or to the people the rights they have not granted.

In Convention. -- Mr. PINCKNEY submitted to the House, in order to be referred to the committee of detail, the following propositions: -- "The United States shall be forever considered as one body corporate and politic in law, and entitled to all the RIGHTS, privileges, and immunities, which to bodies corporate do or ought to appertain."

"To fix, and permanently establish, the seat of government of the United States, in Which they shall possess the exclusive RIGHT of soil and jurisdiction."

Mr. KING moved to insert, before the word "power," word "sole,"

giving the United States the exclusive RIGHT to declare the punishment of treason.

Mr. WILSON. In cases of a general nature, treason can only be against the United States; and in such they should have the sole RIGHT to declare the punishment;

Mr. DAVIE. It is well known that Congress had a discretionary RIGHT to raise men and money; but they had no power to do either...

The encroachments of some states on the RIGHTS of others, and of all on those of the Confederacy, are incontestable proofs of the weakness and imperfection of that system.

Mr. IREDELL. But the fact is, that they have, by degrees, increased their power to an astonishing degree, and, when they think proper to exert it, can command almost any thing they please. This great power they enjoy, by having the name of representatives of the people, and the exclusive RIGHT of originating money bills. What authority, then, will our representatives not possess, who will really represent the people, and equally have the RIGHT of originating money bills?... The circumstance of their representing the great body of the people, alone gives them great weight. This weight has great authority added to it, by their possessing the RIGHT (a RIGHT given to the people’s representatives in Congress) of exclusively originating money bills...

It says, expressly, that the House of Representatives shall consist of members chosen for two years, and that the Senate shall be composed of senators chosen for six years. At the expiration of these terms, the RIGHT of election reverts to the people AND the states;

Mr. SPENCER. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that this clause, giving this control over the time, place, and manner, of holding elections, to Congress, does away the right of the people to choose the representatives every second year, and impairs the RIGHT of the state legislatures to choose the senators...

... and their knowledge of the ultimate RIGHT of Congress to collect taxes would stimulate their exertions to raise money. But if the power of taxation be given in the first instance to Congress, the state legislatures will be liable to be counteracted by the general government in all their operations... The RIGHT of Congress to lay taxes ultimately, in case of non-compliance with requisitions, would operate as a penalty, and would stimulate the states to discharge their quotas faithfully.

Gov. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, if there be any difference between this Constitution and the Confederation, with respect to treaties, the Constitution is more safe than the Confederation. We know that two members from each state have a RIGHT, by the Confederation, to give the vote of that state, and two thirds of the states have a RIGHT also to make treaties.

Mr. DAVIE. Mr. Chairman, although treaties are mere conventional acts between the contracting parties, yet, by the law of nations, they are the supreme law of the land to their respective citizens or subjects... The power of making treaties has, in all countries and governments, been placed in the executive departments... ; because, by the Confederation, Congress had power to make treaties. It was one of those original RIGHTS of sovereignty which were vested in them; and it was not the deficiency of constitutional authority in Congress to make treaties that produced the necessity of a law to declare their validity; but it was owing to the entire imbecility of the Confederation.

Mr. SPENCER. I can see no power that can keep up the little remains of the power of the states. Our RIGHTS are not guarded. There is no declaration of rights, to secure to every member of the society those unalienable rights which ought not to be given up to any government. Such a bill of rights would be a check upon men in power. Instead of such a bill of rights, this Constitution has a clause which may warrant encroachments on the power of the respective state legislatures. I know it is said that what is not given up to the United States will be retained by the individual states. I know it ought to be so, and should be so understood; but, sir, it is not declared to be so.

In the Confederation it is expressly declared that all RIGHTS and powers, of any kind whatever, of the several STATES, which are not given up to the United States, are expressly and absolutely retained, to be enjoyed by the STATES.

In order to constitute this security, it appears to me there ought to be such a clause in the Constitution as there was in the Confederation, expressly declaring, that every power, jurisdiction, and RIGHT, which are not given up by it, remain in the STATES. Such a clause would render a bill of rights unnecessary. But as there is no such clause, I contend that there should be a bill of rights, ascertaining and securing the great RIGHTS of the states and people.

Mr. MACLAINE. It would be very extraordinary to have a bill of rights, because the powers of Congress are expressly defined; and the very definition of them is as valid and efficacious a check as a bill of rights could be, without the dangerous implication of a bill of rights. The powers of Congress are limited and enumerated. We say we have given them those powers, but we do not say we have given them more. We retain all those RIGHTS which we have not given away to the general government.

5. That each branch ought to possess the RIGHT of originating acts.

6. That the national legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative RIGHTS vested in Congress by the Confederation, and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate states are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation;…

10. That the national executive shall have a RIGHT to negative any legislative act, which shall not afterwards be passed unless by two thirds of each branch of the national legislature.

It was denied that the equality of suffrage was originally agreed to on principles of necessity or expediency; on the contrary, that it was adopted on the principles of the RIGHTS of men, and the RIGHTS of states, which were then well known, and which then influenced our conduct, although now they seem to be forgotten. For this, the Journals of Congress were appealed to... the most convincing proof it was agreed to, and adopted, not from necessity, but upon a full conviction that, according to the principles of free government, the states had a RIGHT to that equality of suffrage...

... we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country and the world at large to judge, between us, who best understood the RIGHTS of freemen and free states, and who best advocated them;

The states have a RIGHT to an equality of representation. This is secured to us by our present Articles of Confederation; we are in possession of this RIGHT. It is now to be torn from us. What security can you give us that, when you get the power the proposed system will give you, when you have men and money, you will not force from the states that equality of suffrage, in the second branch, which you now deny to be their RIGHT, and only give up from absolute necessity?

... that it is the state governments which are to watch over and protect the RIGHTS of the individual, whether rich or poor, or of moderate circumstances, and in which the democratic and aristocratic influence or principles are to be so blended, modified, and checked, as to prevent oppression and injury --

that the federal government is to guard and protect the states and their RIGHTS, and to regulate their common concerns...

Another consideration, Mr. Speaker, it was thought, ought to have great weight to prove that the smaller states cannot depend on the Senate for the preservation of their RIGHTS, either against large and ambitious states, or against an ambitious, aspiring President.

It was my opinion, sir, that the states ought not to be totally deprived of the RIGHT to emit bills of credit, and that, as we had not given an authority to the general government for that purpose, it was the more necessary to retain it in the states.

That it was inconsistent with the RIGHTS of free and independent states to have their territory dismembered without their consent, was the principal argument used by the opponents of this proposition.

That it was inconsistent with the RIGHTS of free and independent states to have their territory dismembered without their consent, was the principal argument used by the opponents of this proposition. The truth of the objection we readily admitted, but at the same time insisted that it was not more inconsistent with the RIGHTS of free and independent states than that inequality of suffrage and power which the larger states had extorted from the others; and that, if the smaller states yielded up their RIGHTS in that instance, they were entitled to demand from the states of extensive territory a surrender of their RIGHTS in this instance; and in a particular manner, as it was equally necessary for the true interest and happiness of the citizens of their own states, as of the Union. But, sir, although, when the large states demanded undue and improper sacrifices to be made to their pride and ambition, they treated the RIGHTS of free states with more contempt than ever a British Parliament treated the RIGHTS of her colonial establishment, yet, when a reasonable and necessary sacrifice was asked from them, they spurned the idea with ineffable disdain. They then perfectly understood the full value and the sacred obligation of state RIGHTS, and at the least attempt to infringe them, where they were concerned, they were tremblingly alive, and agonized at every pore.

The people of the different states never made any objection to the manner in which the Articles of Confederation were formed or ratified, or to the mode by which alterations were to be made in that government: with the RIGHTS of their respective states they wished not to interfere. Nor do I believe the people, in their individual capacity, would ever have expected or desired to have been appealed to on the present occasion, in violation of the RIGHTS of their respective states, if the favorers of the proposed Constitution, imagining they had a better chance of forcing it to be adopted by a hasty appeal to the people at large, (who could not be so good judges of the dangerous consequence,) had not insisted upon this mode.

When I took my seat in the Convention, I found them attempting to bring forward a system which, I was sure, never had entered into the contemplation of those I had the honor to represent, and which, upon the fullest consideration, I considered not only injurious to the interest and RIGHTS of this state, but also incompatible with the political happiness and freedom of the states in general.

I, sir, am in that predicament. I have the honor to hold an appointment in this state. Had it been considered any objection, I presume I should not have been appointed to the Convention. If it could have had any effect on my mind, it would only be that of warming my heart with gratitude, and rendering me more anxious to promote the true interest of that state which has conferred on me the obligation, and to heighten my guilt, had I joined in sacrificing its essential RIGHTS.

These observations, sir, procured from some of the members an open avowal of those reasons by which we believed, before, that they were actuated. They said that, as the states would be opposed to the general government, and at enmity with it -- which, as I have already observed, they assumed as a principle -- if the militia was under the control and the authority of the respective states, it would enable them to thwart and oppose the general government.

They said the states ought to be at the mercy of the general government, and therefore that the militia ought to be put under its power, and not suffered to remain under the power of the respective states. In answer to these declarations, it was urged that if, after having retained to the general government the great powers already granted -- and among those, that of raising and keeping up regular troops without limitation -- the power over the militia should be taken away from the states, and also given to the general government, it ought to be considered as the last coup de grace to the state governments; that it must be the most convincing proof, the advocates of this system design the destruction of the state governments, and that no professions to the contrary ought to be trusted; -- and that every state in the Union ought to reject such a system with indignation, since, if the general government should attempt to oppress and enslave them, they could not have any possible means of self-defence;

because the proposed system, taking away from the states the RIGHT of organizing, arming, and disciplining of the militia, the first attempt made by a state to put the militia in a situation to counteract the arbitrary measures of the general government would be construed into an act to rebellion or treason, and Congress would instantly march their troops into the state.

It was further observed that, when a government wishes to deprive their citizens of freedom, and reduce them to slavery, it generally makes use of a standing army for that purpose, and leaves the militia in a situation as contemptible as possible, lest they might oppose its arbitrary designs--that in this system we give the general government every provision it could wish for, and even invite it to subvert the liberties of the states and their citizens,

since we give it the RIGHT to increase and keep up a standing army as numerous as it would wish, and, by placing the militia under its power, enable it to leave the militia totally unorganized, undisciplined, and even to disarm them;

while the citizens, so far from complaining of this neglect, might even esteem it a favor in the general government, as thereby they would be freed from the burden of militia duties, and left to their own private occupations and pleasures.