2nd Amendment

is a right of the state, backed by its people, to resist federal tyranny. And although a government body, the militia is specifically an instrument of state, not federal government.

On the other hand, Henigan recognizes that state governments relied on their militias to resist federal tyranny. He quotes Luther Martin's warning that in the event the states lost their militias, 'if the general government should attempt to oppress and enslave them, they could not have any possible means of self-defense.'42 Similarly, he reminds us that Madison assured the AntiFederalist that if the federal government should become tyrannical, 'the State governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger.' 43 It would appear, then, that Henigan is arguing against only an individual 'constitutional right co engage in armed insurrection against tyrannical authority, whether state or federal.' By contrast, he appears to believe that the amendment protects a right of the state, backed by its people, to resist federal tyranny. And although a government body, the militia is specifically 'an instrument of state government.'

is not a protection of an individual right to revolution (which could lead to anarchy). The amendment was to protect the state militia, notably, an instrument of governmental authority.

In a separate article, Dennis Henigan seeks to refute the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to revolution, which he calls the 'insurrectionary theory. He again argues that the point in the amendment was to protect the militia, which he describes, in good Weberian fashion, as 'an instrument of governmental authority.'

Dennis A. HeniganThinkers

Dennis A. Henigan