How important is the Militia clause in the right to bare arms?

[Burgold]

I think that this clause is the big troublemaker for people trying to interpret the second amendment. How important, how relevent, is the "militia" clause? What does it mean in a modern context?

Should the clause be ammended to remove well-regulated militia?

[JimboDaMan]

I think that this clause is the big troublemaker for people trying to interpret the second amendment. How important, how relevent, is the "militia" clause? What does it mean in a modern context?

Should the clause be ammended to remove well-regulated militia?

Not only the big troublemaker, but I suspect deliberately so. Many of the founders, in other writings, expressed the notion of unfettered access to arms (even defining "arms" in modern terms is tricky). Yet when authoring the amendment, rather than taking the opportunity for clarity they chose the awkward construction. The current set of Supremes, or at least a one-vote mojority, seems to feel that clause is a completely separate thought, which seems unlikely to me seeing as they're in the same friggin sentence. Yep, its the troublemaker as you say.

[MDRedskinsFan]

Burgold, you mean I can't wear short sleeve shirts anymore unless I join a militia?

In current terms, I'd say it is the reason why the vote on the SCOTUS was a narrow 5-4. It depends on the person's interpretation of "militia." Some think the National Guard counts as a militia, and some think that since we have a full-blown military, militia consists of the rest of American citizens. If that clause were not in the 2nd amendment, and the vote were not 9-0, then whoever dissented should be immediately removed from the bench in lieu of their attempt to 'legislate from the bench.'

I think it needs to be amended, for the simple reason that I feel that a citizen has the right to defend themselves. If they are incapable of doing that with their strength, then a gun is the next best thing, provided they are mentally stable and know how to shoot. Criminals won't obey laws, and will always be armed to do harm to others. So, since the police can't be everywhere, I think an armed and alert society is the next best thing.

To take it a step further, in this age of terrorism, an armed society can be a scary thought, because of tensions. However, if the vast majority of us are armed, should a terror attack occur, its damaging effects can be minimized. We might still have nuts with guns, like the shooter in the Va Tech shooting, but if even one of those students in that building is armed with a gun, there's no way he'd have killed 30 people. An armed society is not only safer, but is a polite society.

[Burgold]

I don't think it needs to be amended, for the simple reason that I feel that a citizen has the right to defend themselves. If they are incapable of doing that with their strength, then a gun is the next best thing, provided they are mentally stable and know how to shoot. Criminals won't obey laws, and will always be armed to do harm to others. So, since the police can't be everywhere, I think an armed and alert society is the next best thing.

See, if this is the case, then I think it must be ammended. Because if that's the meaning, then there shouldn't be a 5-4. It should be 9-0. It should be made clear and absolute.

I'm on the fence about gun control. I generally am pro-restrictions. Background checks. Licensing. Safety locks. Mandatory training. All sound good to me. Heck, I'd like it if we could develop a sensor where a bullet would only fire if it recognized the thumbprint of the shooter.

Still, I can buy and accept the right to arm yourself in self-defense and even for self-offense to defend yourself from a tyrannical ruler. Although honestly, the mental image of me with my hand gun facing off against a stealth bomber and smart bombs doesn't fill me with confidence for my chances. Still, against the neighborhood thug or a home invasion, I understand the want to be able to protect yourself.

Non the less, the militia bit is a puzzle, because I can't see an interpretation of a well regulated militia as one composed of me, myself, and I. I mean I like to be well-regulated, that's why I eat my bran, but I don't think that's what the founders were getting at.

So, I think the clause should be ammended or followed.

[MDRedskinsFan]

See, if this is the case, then I think it must be ammended. Because if that's the meaning, then there shouldn't be a 5-4. It should be 9-0. It should be made clear and absolute.

I'm on the fence about gun control. I generally am pro-restrictions. Background checks. Licensing. Safety locks. Mandatory training. All sound good to me. Heck, I'd like it if we could develop a sensor where a bullet would only fire if it recognized the thumbprint of the shooter.

Still, I can buy and accept the right to arm yourself in self-defense and even for self-offense to defend yourself from a tyrannical ruler. Although honestly, the mental image of me with my hand gun facing off against a stealth bomber and smart bombs doesn't fill me with confidence for my chances. Still, against the neighborhood thug or a home invasion, I understand the want to be able to protect yourself.

Non the less, the militia bit is a puzzle, because I can't see an interpretation of a well regulated militia as one composed of me, myself, and I. I mean I like to be well-regulated, that's why I eat my bran, but I don't think that's what the founders were getting at.

So, I think the clause should be ammended or followed.

Haha, I just reread that, and meant to suggest that it be amended.

[Bang]

I've always felt it is rather straightforward.

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.

Well regulated miliia meaning organization, militia, not every man for himself.

Security of a free state means a free state, not a free living room.

So, if we wanted to form a militia, have regular drill and duty in order to keep other states or nations from disrupting the security of our state, fine.

But somehow that has been taken to mean that every citizen has the right to arm themselves to the teeth, with no regulation of any militia, and for no other reason than he wants to be able to shoot things.

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

There is no right to bare arms, whether in a militia or not.

There is no right to arm bears either.

[Thiebear]

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“ 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. ”

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“ 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.

I see a distinct difference between the two.

[@DCGoldPants]

[Popeman38]

Well, the definition of militia has changed over the years. When the second was written, militia was defined as:

the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service

Today, we define a militia as:

civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army

That is a huge difference. When the colonies organized an army to fight the British, they called the militia to serve. Meaning every able-bodied man that is able to serve. It was NOT like calling the National Guard forward. These guys were no more trained in the art of war than the senior classes that just graduated high school.

To interpret the second amendment in todays definitions is dishonest.

Now, I fully expect someone to come forward and say "OK, you can now own black powder muskets and single shot pistols".

[PokerPacker]

I think that the militia part implies that this group of armed citizens should be capable of fighting off a government's military forces

[IbleedBnG83]

I never understood how the term "a well regulated milita" is interpreted as everyone has the right to have a gun.

[Kilmer17]

I think it's incredibly important.

It means that citizens have the PERSONAL right to have firearms, so they can, at any time, join a militia without the Govt preventing them from having the necessary weaponry to do so.

The purpose was to protect citizens from the Govt, not from other citizens.

[Corcaigh]

No matter how you interpret it, those aren't bare arms.

[Popeman38]

I never understood how the term "a well regulated milita" is interpreted as everyone has the right to have a gun.

Because militia did not mean then what it means today. Today, we see a militia as similiar to the National Guard. Then, it was ever able-bodied male up to like 60 yrs old. Basically, an adult male. To transform the meaning to todays definition of militia distorts the document.

[Burgold]

Well, the definition of militia has changed over the years. When the second was written, militia was defined as:

If that's the case, it sounds like the militia that the founders were thinking of might be best described as today's volunteer standing army. I don't think they were quite thinking that either, but it seems the word militia demanded some kind of organization. Oversight. The founders were big on individual rights, but bigger on organizational checks and balances.

[IbleedBnG83]

I think it's incredibly important.

It means that citizens have the PERSONAL right to have firearms, so they can, at any time, join a militia without the Govt preventing them from having the necessary weaponry to do so.

The purpose was to protect citizens from the Govt, not from other citizens.

Well thats just it. If you spin the interpretation as such, it makes sense in terms of enforcing the right for individuals to have guns. But there is no factual evidence as to what the founding fathers were attempting to do. I would also be remiss if I did not acknowledge as others have done the ingenious writing drafted by the fathers to have their laws be open to interpretation for changing times.

[MDRedskinsFan]

If that's the case, it sounds like the militia that the founders were thinking of might be best described as today's volunteer standing army. I don't think they were quite thinking that either, but it seems the word militia demanded some kind of organization. Oversight. The founders were big on individual rights, but bigger on organizational checks and balances.

By oversight, I think that is accomplished through the various regulations that can be placed on owning a gun (mandatory training, background checks, etc). The organization is our government, and we are citizens of that organization. If interpreted in that way, the citizens would be considered a balance against the government, and would fit the organizational checks and balances theory. Again, all depends on interpretation.

[Bang]

Because militia did not mean then what it means today. Today, we see a militia as similiar to the National Guard. Then, it was ever able-bodied male up to like 60 yrs old. Basically, an adult male. To transform the meaning to todays definition of militia distorts the document.

I understand that, and it's a good point, but what about the preceding "well regulated".

It would seem to me that even in the context of the meaning of the word "militia" in the 1780s "well regulated" still would mean the same.

Is this simple registry of the guns, of eligible men, or is this mean that these citizens must act as a single fighting force at least part of the time like the Guard does?

~Bang

[Popeman38]

If that's the case, it sounds like the militia that the founders were thinking of might be best described as today's volunteer standing army. I don't think they were quite thinking that either, but it seems the word militia demanded some kind of organization. Oversight. The founders were big on individual rights, but bigger on organizational checks and balances.

Think 1776. You call on the "militia" to fight the British. Who arms the militia? No-one, they bring their own arms. Now, they had a standing army. That is the same as todays army. The militia is nothing more than 18 - 60 year old men. No other qualifications or requirements. Common sense need to prevail here. If they meant a state controlled military, how would this in any way allow the citizens to protect themselves from the state govt becoming over bearing? The state controlled the means of a rebellion. They would have simply written that the state has the right to arm citizens. They intended the people to have the right to bear and keep arms in order to maintain a free state. NOT VICE VERSA.

Look at the British definition of Militia: The obligation to serve in the militia in England derives from a common law tradition, and dates back to Anglo-Saxon times. The tradition was that all able-bodied males were liable to be called out to serve in one of two organisations.These were the posse comitatus, an ad hoc assembly called together by a law officer to apprehend lawbreakers, and the fyrd, a military body intended to preserve internal order or defend the locality against an invader.

[Kilmer17]

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

A cool site that has quotes and statements from the FFs.

Pretty clear what they meant.

[MDRedskinsFan]

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

A cool site that has quotes and statements from the FFs.

Pretty clear what they meant.

Agreed. Look at the quote by Samuel Adams about "peaceable citizens." It's clear that they left the door wide open for regulations governing what types of people could own guns, but never supported an outright ban. That's what Chicago and DC have had for years, and now they have been rendered unconstitutional. It is clear that the dissenters on the SCOTUS decision yesterday have a different opinion on what government can and can't do. It is the job of the SCOTUS to protect the rights of the citizens from the legislative branches, and the dissenters wanted to "legislate from the bench." Although, I guess the same could be said for those who opposed abortion rights, even though it is ending a life?:whoknows:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I've always felt it is rather straightforward.

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.

Well regulated miliia meaning organization, militia, not every man for himself.

Security of a free state means a free state, not a free living room.

So, if we wanted to form a militia, have regular drill and duty in order to keep other states or nations from disrupting the security of our state, fine.

But somehow that has been taken to mean that every citizen has the right to arm themselves to the teeth, with no regulation of any militia, and for no other reason than he wants to be able to shoot things.

~Bang

I really agree with this.

I think the opinion Scalia wrote is somewhat embarassing from a legal perspective because he chooses to ignore the first two parts of the Amendment. Maybe its me, but the first clauses are supposed to be the most important clauses of any amendment.

I think that Scalia could have made a much more intelligent argument if he discussed how the founding fathers' application of the amendment was different than what we have now, and that now it makes sense to interpret the amendment in light of how the world works today.

The opinion, which ultimately may have had the right result, was reached for all the wrong reasons. The idea that you can parse out clauses in any part of the Constitution and CHOOSE to ignore them, as opposed to apply the entire sentence to the facts, is arrogant. This is going to be a black eye on Scalia, whom until now I thought of as a brilliant yet misled justice. Now he looks like an arrogant one with no real respect for the Constitution.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Think 1776. You call on the "militia" to fight the British. Who arms the militia? No-one, they bring their own arms. Now, they had a standing army. That is the same as todays army. The militia is nothing more than 18 - 60 year old men. No other qualifications or requirements. Common sense need to prevail here. If they meant a state controlled military, how would this in any way allow the citizens to protect themselves from the state govt becoming over bearing? The state controlled the means of a rebellion. They would have simply written that the state has the right to arm citizens. They intended the people to have the right to bear and keep arms in order to maintain a free state. NOT VICE VERSA.

Look at the British definition of Militia: The obligation to serve in the militia in England derives from a common law tradition, and dates back to Anglo-Saxon times. The tradition was that all able-bodied males were liable to be called out to serve in one of two organisations.These were the posse comitatus, an ad hoc assembly called together by a law officer to apprehend lawbreakers, and the fyrd, a military body intended to preserve internal order or defend the locality against an invader.

A much more intelligent argument than the one Scalia made.

[sacase]

If you want to take those quotes further it places no limitations on what weapons people can own, especially if they have to deal with a tyrannical govt.