In Bear Arms, author John Enos delivers a powerful and historically grounded examination of the Second Amendment, placing significant emphasis on the function and purpose of the militia. While contemporary interpretations often narrow the amendment to individual gun ownership, Enos argues for a broader and more constitutional understanding rooted in the founding era’s original intentions. His book serves as both a legal critique and a historical clarification, offering a detailed analysis of how the militia, as conceived by the Founding Fathers, plays a central role in preserving liberty.
Throughout the book, Enos challenges the modern legal and political discourse that seeks to minimize or distort the role of militias. He asserts that any genuine reading of the Second Amendment must start with its text, context, and historical application. According to Enos, the term “militia” was never intended as a vague or obsolete concept—it referred directly to the body of the people trained and armed to defend against tyranny, both foreign and domestic.
Historical Foundations of the Militia Concept
One of the book’s strengths lies in its exhaustive exploration of colonial and revolutionary American thought. Enos traces the evolution of the militia back to English common law, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the fear of standing armies in peacetime. These events heavily influenced the American colonies, which viewed militias as safeguards against centralized military power.
Second Amendment in Constitutional Context
Enos’s book takes readers deep into the framing period, drawing from debates in the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. He notes that the Second Amendment’s language A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State explicitly ties the right to keep and bear arms to the preservation of the militia. This connection, he argues, has been misinterpreted or deliberately ignored in contemporary discussions.
Rather than treating the militia clause as a historical artifact or a prefatory statement, Enos emphasizes its legal importance. The phrase “well-regulated” meant properly functioning and trained, not government-restricted. The militia was intended to be effective, not neutered by regulation. Thus, Enos critiques modern gun control measures that, in his view, erode the conditions necessary for a viable citizen militia.
Militia vs. Standing Armies A Constitutional Tension
A significant portion of Arms is devoted to highlighting the Founders’ deep mistrust of standing armies. Enos underscores that the American Revolution itself was, in part, a response to British military occupation and disarmament efforts. This history fed the widespread belief that a permanent army posed a threat to liberty.
In contrast, the militia—being composed of everyday citizens—was viewed as a democratic institution. Enos explores this contrast to argue that the Second Amendment was meant to preserve this balance by empowering the people, not the state, with the means of force. Consequently, arms were not a separate issue from the militia; it was its foundation.
Contemporary Distortion of the Militia’s Role
Enos critiques how modern politics and jurisprudence have deconstructed the militia concept to the point of irrelevance. He argues that the contemporary legal trend to focus solely on individual self-defense strips the Second Amendment of its original collective and political dimensions. While Enos supports the right to individual ownership, he warns against separating it from the civic duty to protect community and liberty.
Militia and Civic Responsibility
Enos not only critiques but also offers a framework for reviving the militia’s role in civil society. He argues that the right to bear arms entails civic responsibility, community defense, and preparedness for crises. Far from being a license for unregulated gun ownership, the Second Amendment represents a call for an informed and capable citizenry. This vision reflects the republican values on which the United States was founded.
Judicial Interpretations and Legislative Challenges
In later chapters, Enos offers a critical review of major court decisions, including District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. While he supports these rulings for recognizing individual rights, he believes they fall short in reviving the militia’s role. Enos urges courts and legislators to take a broader historical view, incorporating both individual and collective dimensions into Second Amendment jurisprudence.
He critiques legislative efforts that ignore or undermine the historical connection between arms and liberty. Red flag laws, universal background checks, and magazine limits are examined not only for their effectiveness but for their constitutional coherence. Enos challenges readers to consider whether such laws infringe upon the ability of citizens to participate meaningfully in a well-regulated militia.
Conclusion
John Enos’s is more than a book about guns—it is a book about liberty, civic responsibility, and the constitutional structure of power. By restoring the militia to its central place in Second Amendment interpretation, Enos delivers a timely and necessary corrective to modern legal and political distortions.
