T H E
F E D E R A L I S T
A D D R E S S E D T O
T H E P E O P L E
O F T H E
U N I T E D S T A T E S
N o . 8 6
January 12th, 2026
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO RESUME THEIR ORIGINAL AUTHORITY WHEN GOVERNMENT CEASES TO SERVE ITS JUST PURPOSES
The United States government, over time, has worked persistently to take power away from the people. This is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared. One of the core principles upon which this country was built was the belief that a militia, composed of ordinary citizens, is essential to preventing tyrannical rule. This principle is explicitly stated in the Second Amendment:
“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.”
Numerous courts, however, have held that the Second Amendment does not authorize private militias. Furthermore, Democrat-run states—New York, for example—have enacted laws that specifically prohibit ordinary citizens from assembling, training, drilling, or acting as a militia unless lawfully called forth by the Governor. The constitutionality of these laws, however, is questionable.
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court made historical tradition the controlling test for evaluating modern firearm regulations. The Court rejected interest-balancing and means-end scrutiny and replaced them with a history-focused constitutional standard. The Supreme Court held:
“The government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”
“Late-19th-century evidence cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.”
“Post-ratification adoption or acceptance of laws that are inconsistent with the original meaning cannot overcome or alter that meaning.”
“A modern-day regulation must be analogous enough to historical regulations to pass constitutional muster.”
The Governing Test (Established by the Supreme Court)
Does the Second Amendment’s plain text cover the individual’s conduct?
If yes, proceed to step two.
Can the government show a historical tradition of regulation justifying the law?
If no, the law is unconstitutional.
Identifying the Historical Tradition of Militia Regulation
The question of how to identify the historical tradition of militia regulation has a straightforward answer: The Federalist Papers.
The Federalist Papers are a collection of 85 essays written between 1787 and 1788 to advocate for the ratification of the United States Constitution. They are among the most authoritative primary sources for understanding the Constitution’s original meaning, structure, and purpose. The essays were authored by three Founding Fathers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.
Because the permanent need for a militia was a foundational principle in preserving liberty, the Founders discussed it extensively throughout these essays.
Federalist No. 28 (Hamilton):
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”
Federalist No. 29 (Hamilton):
“This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms.”
“Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”
Federalist No. 44 (Madison):
“The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion, are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense.”
Federalist No. 46 (Madison):
“To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties.”
Federalist No. 69 (Hamilton):
“The President is to be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States.”
Applying the Governing Test
Step One:
Does the Second Amendment’s plain text cover the individual’s conduct?
“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.”
Plain-English translation:
Because a free society requires an organized and prepared citizen force for its security, the people themselves possess the right to own and carry weapons, and the government may not take that right away.
Answer: YES → proceed to step two.
Step Two:
Can the government show a historical tradition of regulation justifying the law?
To answer this, we must first examine New York law.
New York Military Law § 240 (2024):
(a) Any person who assembles or conspires to assemble with one or more persons as a paramilitary organization, and has knowledge of its purpose, is guilty of a class C felony when he, with one or more other members of such organization, practices with a military weapon in order to further the purpose of such organization.
(b) “Paramilitary organization” means an organization of two or more persons who engage in military instruction or training in warfare or sabotage for the purpose of unlawfully causing physical injury to any person or unlawfully damaging property.
(c) “Military weapon” includes firearms, explosives, incendiary devices, missiles, or any device simulating the foregoing.
Now compare this with historical tradition:
“Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and… it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”
— Hamilton, Federalist No. 29
Plain-English translation:
For most citizens, the realistic goal was that they own suitable weapons and periodically assemble to ensure readiness.
Conclusion:
NO → the law is unconstitutional.
The Militia and the Founding of the United States
The Revolutionary War was fought and won by militias. Under British tyranny, the colonists had no standing army. What they did have were able-bodied citizens with privately owned weapons who organized locally by towns and colonies. The early stages of the Revolutionary War were fought almost entirely by militias until the Continental Army could be formed. Even afterward, militias provided essential support—guarding towns, protecting borders, and reinforcing the Army. Without the militia, the Revolutionary War would not have been won, and the United States would not exist.
The permanent need for a militia became a core principle of the American system, designed to ensure that tyranny could never again take hold. Although the Founders constructed a government intended to prevent corruption, consolidation of power, and abuse, they understood that no system could fully eliminate the risk.
Their writings make this fear unmistakably clear.
Thomas Jefferson:
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.”
“When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption.”
“I think that it would be a good thing to restrict the members of the legislature to a single session, or at least to require that they should be re-eligible only after some interval.” - Letter to James Madison (1787)
“The grounds of this opinion are… that a government by hereditary succession is as much an aristocracy as one by birth or wealth.” - Letter to John Taylor (1816)
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” - Letter to William Stephens Smith (1787)
James Madison:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” (Federalist No. 47)
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” (Federalist No. 51)
“The means of defense against foreign danger have always been the instruments of tyranny at home.”
Alexander Hamilton:
“A standing army… is dangerous to liberty.”
“Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.”
John Adams:
“Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak.”
“Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
Patrick Henry:
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Samuel Adams:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty… you may deserve your chains.”
Final Observations
The Founders created numerous safeguards to restrain tyranny, including:
Separation of powers
Checks and balances
Federalism (vertical division of power)
Bicameral legislature
Staggered terms
Independent judiciary
Enumerated powers
The amendment process
Civilian control of the military
Congressional control of funding
The Militia