Understanding the Bill of Rights: Restraints on Government, Not Grants of Rights
- Hootey Cline
- Feb 1
- 5 min read
From the Bench: A gunsmith's perspective on constitutional foundations
By Hootey Cline, Blue Coat Arms Company
Originally published June 24, 2019 | Updated July 1, 2025
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, and nothing in this article constitutes legal advice.
In today's heated debates over "reasonable restraints" on our constitutional rights, we've lost sight of a fundamental truth about the Bill of Rights. As someone who works daily with firearms and serves customers who depend on their Second Amendment protections, I believe it's crucial we understand what our founders actually intended when they crafted these amendments.
The current narrative that the federal government has the authority to impose "reasonable restraints" on our rights represents a complete inversion of the Bill of Rights' original purpose. Let me explain why this matters – not just for legal scholars, but for every American who values their constitutional protections.
The Forgotten Preamble
When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification in 1791, it came with a preamble that modern discussions conveniently ignore. This preamble clearly stated the amendments' purpose: to prevent the federal government from "misconstruing or abusing its powers" through "further declaratory and restrictive clauses."
Read that again. The Bill of Rights wasn't created to grant us rights – it was designed to place additional restrictions on federal power.
The Second Amendment Through the Original Lens
When we read the Second Amendment through this preamble, its meaning becomes crystal clear. Rather than granting us the right to keep and bear arms, it was incorporated as a "declaratory and restrictive clause" to prevent the federal government from infringing on a pre-existing right.
Consider this rewrite that captures the original intent:
"Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe on the people's right to keep and bear Arms."
This isn't interpretation – this is the documented purpose of the amendment as stated in the ratification documents.
The Great Inversion
Here's where things went wrong: by suppressing the preamble and original intent, government institutions have been able to flip the script entirely. Instead of the amendments serving as restraints on government power, they've been transformed into grants of rights that the government can then regulate, limit, and define.
This sleight of hand has allowed the federal government to claim constitutional authority to:
Determine the extent of individual rights
Impose "reasonable restraints" on those rights
Convert constitutional restraints into administrative powers
This is absurd. The entity being restrained cannot be the same entity that interprets and modifies those restraints.
Rights vs. Restraints: A Critical Distinction
The distinction between rights and restraints isn't academic – it's fundamental to understanding our constitutional system.
Our rights come from what the Declaration of Independence calls "a higher source than government" – they're unalienable and pre-existing. The founders understood that if rights came from documents, they could disappear with those documents.
The restraints are what the Bill of Rights actually contains – specific prohibitions on federal power designed to protect those pre-existing rights.
When the federal government violates the Second Amendment, it's not violating your "constitutional right" – it's violating the constitutional restraint placed on its own power.
The "Rights Aren't Absolute" Straw Man
Critics of the Second Amendment love to argue that "no rights are absolute." This misses the point entirely. The Second Amendment isn't about defining the extent of your right to keep and bear arms – it's about restraining government power regarding that right.
Look at the text: "shall not be infringed." No exceptions. No qualifications. No "reasonable restraints." The restraint on government power is absolute, even if the underlying right has natural boundaries.
Why This Matters in the Gun Shop
Every day at Blue Coat Arms Company, I see the practical effects of this constitutional confusion. Customers navigate a maze of federal regulations that exist because we've allowed the government to claim power over rights it was specifically prohibited from touching.
When a customer can't purchase a firearm because of bureaucratic delays, that's not "reasonable regulation" – it's a violation of the constitutional restraint on federal power.
When someone needs a federal license to engage in the business of gunsmithing, that's not public safety – it's the federal government exercising power it was constitutionally denied.
When law-abiding citizens must ask permission to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, we've completely inverted the constitutional order.
The Founders' Wisdom
The founders weren't naive about government power. They understood that any government granted the authority to define the extent of individual rights would inevitably expand that authority. That's why they designed the Bill of Rights as restraints, not grants.
They also understood that these restraints had to be absolute. If the federal government could modify or circumvent constitutional restraints, those restraints would become meaningless. Why would the states have demanded and ratified additional limits on federal power if the federal government could simply ignore them?
Modern Implications
Today's constitutional crisis stems from our failure to understand this basic principle. We've allowed the federal government to:
Transform restraints on its power into grants of our rights
Claim authority to interpret and modify those restraints
Convert constitutional prohibitions into regulatory powers
The result? Constitutional restraints have become government decrees, and our unalienable rights have been reduced to privileges granted by the state.
What We Must Remember
The Bill of Rights doesn't give you the right to keep and bear arms – you already had that right. What it does is prohibit the federal government from interfering with that right.
The Second Amendment doesn't grant anything – it restrains everything the federal government might try to do regarding your pre-existing right to armed self-defense.
When politicians talk about "reasonable gun control," they're claiming power the Constitution specifically denies them.
A Gunsmith's Perspective
From my bench, I see the Constitution not as an abstract document, but as the foundation that allows me to serve customers who depend on their firearms for protection, hunting, sport, and the security of a free state.
Every properly functioning firearm that leaves my shop represents not just craftsmanship, but the practical exercise of constitutional principles our founders died to establish.
When government overreach threatens those principles, it threatens not just abstract rights, but the real-world ability of Americans to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.
The Path Forward
Understanding the true purpose of the Bill of Rights isn't just an academic exercise – it's essential for preserving our constitutional republic. We must:
Educate ourselves about the original intent and documented purpose of the amendments
Reject the false narrative that the federal government grants our rights
Demand adherence to constitutional restraints on federal power
Support leaders who understand the difference between rights and restraints
The firearms community has always been at the forefront of constitutional education. We understand that the right to keep and bear arms isn't just about guns – it's about the fundamental relationship between citizens and government in a free society.
Conclusion
The Bill of Rights stands as a monument to the founders' understanding of human nature and government power. They knew that any government would seek to expand its authority, and they designed specific restraints to prevent that expansion. Our job isn't to ask permission to exercise our rights – it's to hold government accountable to the restraints placed on its power.
No matter your era, we got your six – whether you're defending constitutional principles in the courtroom or exercising them at the range.
Questions about constitutional principles, firearms rights, or the intersection of law and liberty? Contact Blue Coat Arms Company at 217-416-5962 or BlueCoatArms@gmail.com. We're here to serve all Americans who value their constitutional heritage.
Comments