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

[Popeman38]

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

We have that. It is called the THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT http://www.sss.gov/PDFs/MSSA-2003.pdf

This is every able-bodied male 18 - 25 (we narrowed the age window, most likely due to population).

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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:

This is anything but a defense of the Constitution. If you are "defending" it, you do not ignore the parts you find inconvenient.

The legal logic behind this opinion is severely flawed. There is absolutely nothing Constitutionalist about it. In fact, the people that you refer to as "legislating from the bench," were the ones with the concerns about what the Constitution actually says. THAT is a defense of the Constitution.

[PeterMP]

A ban should unconstitution IMO. That doesn't mean the goverment can't have strict regulations ('well regulated'), including where the weapons are stored.

[Popeman38]

A bunch of responses seem to be wrapped around the axle on the militia definition. Most seem to be defining militia as we do today. So I will repost the contrasting definitions:

1776 Militia defined: the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service

2008 Militia defined: civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army

[Popeman38]

A ban should unconstitution IMO. That doesn't mean the goverment can't have strict regulations ('well regulated'), including where the weapons are stored.

So you think they should be able to restrict you to storing them in govt controlled areas?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

A bunch of responses seem to be wrapped around the axle on the militia definition. Most seem to be defining militia as we do today. So I will repost the contrasting definitions:

1776 Militia defined: the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service

2008 Militia defined: civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army

As someone pointed out, I think the "well-regulated" clause is the sticking point for most people.

[Mr. S]

To add, while militia were people mustering together grabbing their muskets, militia were also trained. I guess I'm thinking American Revolution times here. The standing army still existed, but mustering a militia also involved training at the outset of the war. Towns would help entice people to band up by providing food, money, and beer.

On that note though, they were still allowed to have their guns as hunting was part of their livelihood. They did have to bring a gun with them, but supplies and munitions were probably provided. The "well regulated" part still is up for question, but I think it does apply to people, not the standing army.

However, it's a 'well regulated' militia being necessary for the security of the free state. Our security is now preserved by the standing army. From that viewpoint, militia does mean the standing army. People don't need to muster together for now to fight attacks, and if there is a war, people can join the standing army.

I'm still split on how to interpret this. I'm all for restrictions, but I think normal people with no violent history and whatnot should be allowed to have a gun. I also think the restrictions should be standardized.

On a side note, where does the technology argument come into play? There were no handguns back then. Long-barrel guns were not rifled then, so accuracy was horrible. It's why armies had to move soo close to one another and exchange volleys. On top, they were still using gunpowder, which does not have as great of a range or force either compared to what we have now.

Did the framers anticipate newer technology? From their standpoint, everyone used a muzzle loading musket that could fire at best 3 rounds a minute.

[PeterMP]

So you think they should be able to restrict you to storing them in govt controlled areas?

Yes. That could be a goverment regulation and the Ammendment clearly allows for that to the point of saying not just regulated but "well regulated"

[NavyDave]

Yawn, Gun Control Fanatics lost.

But keep trying to read something thats not there to try to discredit it. :D

Some would interpret militia to be law abiding NRA members who are the last line of defense in a neighborhood or area where law enforcement or the military aren't there to protect in event of terrorism, post catastrophe's like Hurricane Katrina's gangs of looters.

The good guy Samaritans, packing heat to protect their fellow man.

[Thiebear]

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

The problem with the above theory is:

Every time a group consolodates to create a well organized group of able bodied people outside of the government: they get waco'd, rubyridged, etc.

So to act as a single fighting force means the ATF will destroy you.

Or does being a member of the NRA count?

[Popeman38]

As someone pointed out, I think the "well-regulated" clause is the sticking point for most people.

Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.

If this is true, and the militia was every able-bodied male 18-60, the individual had to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Well regualted is covered by the Selective Service.:2cents:

[NavyDave]

The problem with the above theory is:

Every time a group consolodates to create a well organized group of able bodied people outside of the government: they get waco'd, rubyridged, etc.

So to act as a single fighting force means the ATF will destroy you.

Or does being a member of the NRA count?

Funny how that happened during an administration that was pro Gun Control.

[Popeman38]

Yes. That could be a goverment regulation and the Ammendment clearly allows for that to the point of saying not just regulated but "well regulated"

But the govt could then deny access to the arms and prevent the citizens from overthrowing a tyrannous govt. Defeats thge entire purpose of bearing arms.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.

If this is true, and the militia was every able-bodied male 18-60, the individual had to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Well regualted is covered by the Selective Service.:2cents:

No, no, no. You can't say that there is a right to a well-regulated militia which gives individuals the right to bear arms, and ALSO provides for the selective service. That is not consistent.

The second amendment did not establish TWO rights. That is really pressing it.

[PeterMP]

But the govt could then deny access to the arms and prevent the citizens from overthrowing a tyrannous govt. Defeats thge entire purpose of bearing arms.

The second ammendment mentions overthrowing a tyrannous goveremnt :whoknows:

[Popeman38]

The second ammendment mentions overthrowing a tyrannous goveremnt :whoknows:

No, but it mentions maintaining a free state. And if the govt becomed tyrannous, there is no longer a free state. They never mention that the threat will be external. :2cents:

[DarrellsMyHero28]

No, but it mentions maintaining a free state. And if the govt becomed tyrannous, there is no longer a free state. They never mention that the threat will be external. :2cents:

Its too bad the far left nuts are anti-guns.

They could have made a case that Bush was a tyrant and just overthrown his sorry ass.

Then we could have free health care, replace the DoD with the Department of Peace, weed for everyone and love would reign supreme!

:laugh:

[Popeman38]

No, no, no. You can't say that there is a right to a well-regulated militia which gives individuals the right to bear arms, and ALSO provides for the selective service. That is not consistent.

The second amendment did not establish TWO rights. That is really pressing it.

My reference to the Selective Service was to point out that we have a well regulated militia (militia defined using the 1776 definition).

If the govt called the militia (again, 1776 definition) to defend the state, the private citizen would supply their own arms. If the individuals did not have a privately owned arms, what would they defend the state with?

[bschurm]

It is interesting how people can interpret 27 words with four punctuation marks so differently.

It was reported yesterday that the Supreme Court went so far as to include a dictionary when debating this case. So let's break it down as they did looking at the punctuation marks included because the punctuation marks are what give the ammendment the structure that ultimately dictates the true meaning.

A well regulated Militia,

The first phrase in the ammendment we have a group of able-bodied males who should be controlled by a rule or principle.

***important to note the comma placed there does not introduce a new thought, it introduces a supporting idea.

being necessary to the security of a free state,

I think this is fairly self explanatory. I think it means that we need Militia to ensure our freedom.

This next part of the ammendment is the controversial issue.

the right of people to keep and bear arms,

First off, what do the commas here signify? Are there two separate thoughts? Or does it simply imply that the previous supporting statement is over and the Miltia statement needs to be included here?

If it is indeed two separate thoughts, 1. A Militia - 2. people to keep and bear arms, then it is obvious that both should be regulated. It means that a Militia is to be regulated and separately the right to keep and bear arms should be regulated. If this is the case, why didn't they include the word AND between militia and people?

Or does it mean that the Militia is the one that needs to have the ability to keep and bear arms not the individual?

I am of the belief that there are two separate statments in there. The grammar used suggests there are two separate thoughts pertaing to Militia and People. It states that the Militia should be regulated and People keeping and bearing arms should be regulated.

The Supreme Court should have voted 9-0 on this. But it is nice to see they made the correct decision, regardless.

[Thiebear]

^^^^ dont forget People was capitalized

if you're going to parse punctuation you have to add that also.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

My reference to the Selective Service was to point out that we have a well regulated militia (militia defined using the 1776 definition).

If the govt called the militia (again, 1776 definition) to defend the state, the private citizen would supply their own arms. If the individuals did not have a privately owned arms, what would they defend the state with?

Well, that is an argument about what the intent of the founders was. And as I've said, its not a bad argument.

However, to say that alone does not answer the question "who does the Second Amendment give rights to?" That was the question: is it a right of the people, or is it a right of the State to have a militia in a way in which they deem necessary. That is, "does the Amendment say that all people have the right to have arms," or does it say that "the State has a right to have a well regulated militia," or does it say that the State has the right to determine how to regulate arms.

So, asking "who would have provided the arms," is really begging the question. Because the question that was asked is do the individuals have a right to have arms, or does the State have the right to say that people can have arms.

[PeterMP]

No, but it mentions maintaining a free state. And if the govt becomed tyrannous, there is no longer a free state. They never mention that the threat will be external. :2cents:

But it does give the goverment the right to 'well regulate'.

[GibbsFactor]

But it does give the goverment the right to 'well regulate'.

Only as people see fit.

It's hard to talk militia today since in the time of the framing, there was no military.

I think everyone liked the idea of the 2nd amendment back then, they just fought a war because of the ability to have a militia.

Once the military was formed under Adams, what was a militia needed for moving forward?

I argue that just because we have a standing army, the ideal of a militia must remain, even if never organized just to keep those in charge honest.

[JohnLockesGhost]

I'd only add to the conversation that the founders didn't think of rights as belonging to groups, but to individuals. So it's impossible for the right to bear arms to be a collective right.

All rights are individual rights. How would a collective even exercise its rights?

[PeterMP]

Only as people see fit.

As expressed as through their elected officials.