What Do The Words "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean?

[Skull Pilot]

The well regulated militia is now the well regulated National Guard.

So?

It was never the intent of the founders to prohibit the owning of firearms.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The well regulated militia is now the well regulated National Guard.

The existence of the Guard does not remove the right for a State to establish a Militia for in State purposes. I know North Carolina has such a Militia.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What Do The Words "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean?

From the majority opinion, citing Thomas Cooley:

“The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.” Id., at 271.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

“But this enables government to have a well-regulated militia… observing in doing so the laws of public order.”

Clearly the militia exist at the behest of state governments, where those who bear arms are subject to some standard of proficiency, as established by government regulatory policy. The individual has the right to bear arms, unconnected with military service, and keep and use them for his personal defense or to participate in the shooting sports.

The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Although the Federal government may be prohibited from interfering with a citizen militia, the Heller Court makes no mention of states and local jurisdictions, where regulatory measures are permitted both with regard to the individual right to keep arms and a ‘well regulated’ militia:

We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

McDonald v, Chicago (2010)

 

[boedicca]

The well regulated militia is now the well regulated National Guard.

So? The 2nd Amendment doesn't require that everyone who owns a gun also be part of a well regulated militia. It says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state...and that the rights of the people regarding owning a gun shall not be infringed. It doesn't make owning a gun dependent upon being in a militia.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The well regulated militia is now the well regulated National Guard.

The existence of the Guard does not remove the right for a State to establish a Militia for in State purposes. I know North Carolina has such a Militia.

The right to establish a militia was not given to the states but to the people.

No matter how you slice it the words, " the right of the people" negates any right of government in this matter.

 

[Kondor3]

I'm pretty sure muskets were considered arms too. Two points for pointing out the obvious.

Given your recent previous...

"The 2nd is not that specific. It says Arms, not guns"

...a newbie (such as myself) might not have construed thus.

All part of the friendly service... no extra charge, for counterpointing utilizing The Bleeding Obvious...

 

[Darkwind]

And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?

We don't ignore it, the 2nd provides two distinct rights. One to the States to maintain militias at their discretion and the individual right to keep and bear arms.

You on the other hand like to claim incorrectly that there is only one right and that it belongs to the States.

What are the words that identifies and separates the individual rights from the "Well regulated militia's?"

English Grammar 101


I know you don't really wish to know the answer....but I'll quote you something that I know you will not read.....It will be the only response you will get from Me on this...

It should come as no surprise that there are so many obvious problems with reading the operative clause of the Second Amendment to protect any sort of right belonging to state governments. If the Constitution had simply provided that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," nobody could maintain with a straight face that the provision could mean anything other than that individuals have that right. Doubts about the plain and obvious meaning of that clause have been raised only because of the prefatory phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . . "
Before looking at these words more closely, we should pause to focus on a few things that the Second Amendment does not say:

1. It emphatically does not say that it protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.
2. Nor does the Second Amendment say that the people's right to arms is sufficient to establish a well regulated militia, or that a well regulated militia is sufficient for the security of a free state.
3. Nor does the Second Amendment say that the right of the people to keep and bears arms is protected only to the extent that such a right fosters a well regulated militia or the security of a free state.

As these observations suggest, the grammar of the Second Amendment emphasizes the indefiniteness of the relation between the introductory participial phrase and the main clause. If you parse the Amendment, it quickly becomes obvious that the first half of the sentence is an absolute phrase (or ablative absolute) that does not modify or limit any word in the main clause. The usual function of absolute phrases is to convey information about the circumstances surrounding the statement in the main clause, such as its cause. For example: "The teacher being ill, class was cancelled."

The importance of this can be illustrated with a simple example. Suppose the Constitution provided: A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.13
​

This provision, which is grammatically identical to the Second Amendment, obviously means the following: because a well educated electorate is necessary to the health of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. The sentence does not say, imply, or even suggest that only registered voters have a right to books. Nor does the sentence say, imply, or even suggest that the right to books may be exercised only by state employees. Nor does the lack of identity between the electorate and the people create some kind of grammatical or linguistic tension within the sentence. It is perfectly reasonable for a constitution to give everyone a right to books as a means of fostering a well educated electorate. The goal might or might not be reached, and it could have been pursued by numerous other means. The creation of a general individual right, moreover, would certainly have other effects besides its impact on the electorate's educational level. And lots of legitimate questions could be raised about the scope of the right to books. But none of this offers the slightest reason to be mystified by the basic meaning of the sentence.
The Second Amendment is no different. Modern readers may have difficulty in seeing how a general right of individuals to keep and bear arms could contribute to a well regulated militia and to the security of a free state, and we shall explore that question in more detail below. But the text of the Second Amendment offers not the slightest warrant for presupposing that the answer to the question is that its framers were semi-literate fools who meant to say something like "The states shall have the right to maintain independent military forces for use against the federal government."

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry, but the Supreme Court settled that issue, You do recall they ruled that the 2nd does in fact provide an individual right separate and distinct from belonging to an organized militia?

Just like coprations have personhood rights, its all a matter of who is sitting on the court, lets just hope the court get a tiny bit more libral and then we can have resonable gun control.

The Constitution doesn't say we can't have gun laws.

You can have whatever gun laws/regulations you want, so long as they do not infringe on the right of the people to keeep and bear arms.

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to keep and bear arms, would that right be infringed?

Do try to be honest.

lol what?

If you really want an answer, you'll have to ask a better question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?

We do many of those things.

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

Almost all of those things are subject to limitation under the law.
Try to go to church in a condemned building.
Try to report on the news slanderous things that are not true.
Try to vote if you're under 18
Try to lie under oath

None of these things are examples of what I asked; you, of course, know this and are simply trying to avoid the issue.
Please try again.

 

[tjvh]

And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?

Second thread on this nonsense today. It must have been Monday's marching order for the drones at the DNC.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I take it that you are talking about the Right to Bear Arms ...................
Militia definition is equivalent to what you would call today "Fight Club".
Just a bunch of drunks, rolling up their sleeves and Bearing their Arms to show off their mussels in preparation for fighting competitions, it was just a sporting event ............. that's all, but now we have gun clinging fags/spin-doctors here in the United States that will spin the 2nd Amendment into whatever suits their interests.

Thank you for helping prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I take it that you are talking about the Right to Bear Arms ...................
Militia definition is equivalent to what you would call today "Fight Club".
Just a bunch of drunks, rolling up their sleeves and Bearing their Arms to show off their mussels in preparation for fighting competitions, it was just a sporting event ............. that's all, but now we have gun clinging fags/spin-doctors here in the United States that will spin the 2nd Amendment into whatever suits their interests.

Thank you for helping prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Hey I know I like to show off my "mussels"

 

[squeeze berry]

And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?

do you mean to say that only the 2nd is not a right of an individual citizen?

sorry, that has already been decided

 

[Wyatt earp]

The well regulated militia is now the well regulated National Guard.

The existence of the Guard does not remove the right for a State to establish a Militia for in State purposes. I know North Carolina has such a Militia.

Yup, mIlitia is not the national gaurd.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd is not that specific. It says Arms, not guns.

Oh. So I guess that means the government cannot forcibly amputate a person's arms.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Nope they can't take your "Bear" Arms ya half-fish........

In military terms of the day that would be cannons, swords, bayonets....

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[M14 Shooter]

How'd did you calculate that one bub?

The Supreme Court so ruled.

Rulings change.

And so...?
"Rulings change" can be applied to any and every ruling ever made.
As such, it is a useless and meaningless retort, uttered only when there is no sound counter to the statement made.

Fact is, the SCotUS said it; unless you can show the argument behind it unsound, you seek nothing more than an arbitrary reversal based on nothing but partisan ideology.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Although the Federal government may be prohibited from interfering with a citizen militia, the Heller Court makes no mention of states and local jurisdictions, where regulatory measures are permitted both with regard to the individual right to keep arms and a ‘well regulated’ militia:

You are right.
-That- happened in McDonald v, Chicago (2010)

 

[Darkwind]

Although the Federal government may be prohibited from interfering with a citizen militia, the Heller Court makes no mention of states and local jurisdictions, where regulatory measures are permitted both with regard to the individual right to keep arms and a ‘well regulated’ militia:

You are right.
-That- happened in McDonald v, Chicago (2010)

Yep...

[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;]Abstract: [/FONT]
[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;] McDonald v. Chicago made clear that the Second Amendment’s right to arms recognized in the 2008 Heller decision extends to individuals regardless of whether the infringement takes place at the hands of federal, state, or local officials. This brings to an end the first era of Second Amendment scholarship, in which discussion on the part of scholars was largely untempered by actual judicial authority. Now, though scholars may (and no doubt will) charge the Supreme Court with error, they are no longer writing on a blank slate. Instead, as with other areas of constitutional law, the discussion will focus on whether the judiciary is doing what it should do, as opposed to focusing on whether the judiciary will do anything at all.[/FONT]

Here is a detailed paper on the McDonald v Chicago ruling..

Five Takes on McDonald v. Chicago by Brannon Denning, Glenn Reynolds :: SSRN

 

[saj]

In order to make sense of what, "A well regulated militia" means, you have to read the Constitution in its entirety. Article 1 section 8 clause 16 clearly defines that the US congress has the authority to organize, arm, discipline, appoint officers to, and train a militia for employment in the service of the United States. Amendment II states that for the Congress to carry out the provisions of its enumerated powers contained in Article 1 sec 8 clause 16, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So to sum up, a well regulated militia must contain the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I hope that clears things up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In order to make sense of what ‘a well regulated militia’ means, you have to read Constitutional case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law, whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not.