What is a Militia?

[AKIron]

If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's ruling allowing citizens to posess functioning firearms imagine the effect when DC crime then goes down. How will the gun haters ever overcome that defeat?

[Toad]

Excuse the brief review:

Reserved powers are those that have been reserved specifically for the states or are of a traditionally state scope. These consist mostly of police powers, such as providing fire and police protection, establishment of health regulations, licensing, and education.

Granted powers, also known as express, enumerated, implied, delegated, and inherent powers, are those specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8, such as the power to coin money, to raise an army and navy, to provide for patent and copyright protections, to establish a post office, and to make treaties and war with other nations. An express, delegated, or enumerated power is one specifically listed; an implied or inherent power is one that exists to carry out an express or enumerated power. For example, Congress can raise an army; this implies the ability to specify regulations concerning who can join the army.

Concurrent powers are those held to some extent by both the federal and state governments. Both, for example, have taxation power, the ability to construct and maintain roads, and other spending for the general welfare.

Many things are denied of both or either levels of government. States, for example, have no authority to coin money or wage war. Neither may pass a bill of attainder or any ex post facto law. Much of the Bill of Rights applies restrictions to both states and the federal government, while all of the Bill of Rights applies restrictions to the federal government. Note that the Bill of Rights originally had no effect of restriction on the states, but judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment's due process clause has incorporated much of the upholding of civil rights to the states.

Forty-four states have constitutional guarantees on the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you think that would happen?

There are state restrictions on gun ownership (see Kalifornicatia) that the Supreme Court has upheld. Why do you think that would be?

[SIG220]

No, the correct question to ask is this:  Who are THE PEOPLE????


"the right of the people  to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


SIG 220

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Bingolong
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases.

So does "well regulated." And .... well ... that's their job.

[SIG220]

The opinion back at that time was that the militia was comprised of ALL MEN able to bear arms.   That is why the right was expressly given to the PEOPLE.   I do not believe that women were yet considered to legally be people back then.   That did not come until much later, as women eventually gained equal rights with men.

Jefferson was the main person behind having a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution.   In fact, he insisted on it, in order to gain his support for the Constitution.  He viewed it as being protection for the people from losing key rights to either the Federal or  State governments.

Here are quotes from Jefferson on these two issues:

"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

"The governor is constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of  every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.



SIG 220

[Arlo]

But Jefferson wasn't the only architect and more than his opinion counts (or counted). Hence the nature of an amendable constitution and the design of the three branch government.

Who, specifically, penned in (or insisted on) the "well regulated" part?  Every Jimmy Joe Billy Bob who wants to own an M-60 doesn't sound like it would fit the bill.

[Toad]

A Wiki history of the how the 2nd was built:

Antifederalists supported the proposal to amend the Constitution with clearly-defined and enumerated rights to provide further constraints on the new government, while opponents felt that by listing only certain rights, other unlisted rights would fail to be protected. Amidst this debate, a compromise was reached, and James Madison drafted what ultimately became the United States Bill of Rights, which was proposed to the Congress on June 8, 1789.

The original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives, was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. [12]

The Bill of Rights that Madison introduced on June 8 was not composed of numbered amendments intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. The Rights instead were to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was to be inserted in Article 1, section 8 that specifies Congress's power over the militia. The sentence that later became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights asserted by individuals as a defense against government action. [12] (Additionally, these provisions can all be interpreted as limits on congressional power, a view that has been advanced by supporters of the individual rights view of the Amendment. [13]) Debate in the House on the remainder of June 8 focused again on whether a Bill of Rights was appropriate, and the matter was held for a later time. On July 21, however, Madison raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion, [14] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. No official records were kept of the proceedings of the committee, but on July 28, the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment. [15] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. [16]

The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20. [17] These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. [18]

On September 4, the Senate voted to change significantly the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. [19]

The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence" next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated. [20] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

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. [21]

This version was transmitted to the states for ratification.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Arlo
But Jefferson wasn't the only architect and more than his opinion counts (or counted). Hence the nature of an amendable constitution and the design of the three branch government.

Who, specifically, penned in (or insisted on) the "well regulated" part?  Every Jimmy Joe Billy Bob who wants to own an M-60 doesn't sound like it would fit the bill.

Well regulated doesn't mean well controlled.  It means well practiced.  

According to the constitution, every Jimmy Joe Billy Bob can own a friggin tank, as long as they are proficient with it.



When you think about it (I know it's tough, us using the word "Think" and expecting you to do it), a gun is rather useless unless the user is a good shot.

[Arlo]

Pretty indepth .... and what you posted only scratched the surface.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Well regulated doesn't mean well controlled.  It means well practiced.  

Back it up with more than your interpretation. Cite.

Originally posted by lasersailor184

According to the constitution, every Jimmy Joe Billy Bob can own a friggin tank, as long as they are proficient with it.

Justice laisersailor's opinion noted.

Originally posted by lasersailor184

When you think about it (I know it's tough, us using the word "Think" and expecting me to do it), a gun is rather useless unless the user is a good shot.

Sometimes even then.

[Toad]

Arlo, there is a great body of research on the 2nd. I recommend http://www.guncite.com

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
       
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

        --- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

        --- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

        --- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))
The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.


        --- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))
And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:
One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops

        --- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))
The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.


What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts.

[Arlo]

I applauded your use of useful source/resource, T. It's not uncommon I challenge the method one resorts to more than their argument. I got no problem with yours.

[AKIron]

I already plan to move to Idaho next January. I'd better start buying up some land in case the SC rules poorly. Land prices there may skyrocket.

[wrag]

Originally posted by Toad
They'll define it for the federal government which should be quite simple; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (by the Federal government).

They'll let state constitutions define firearms ownership/possession for the individual states.

Which is simply as it should be.

For example:

NOPE!

Sorry but the Bill of Rights is the LAW of the LAND!  AND supersedes ALL other laws!

Whatever a state may say if it violates ANY of the rights contained within the Bill of Rights then that state WAY out of line!

Cases have been fought in courts and LOST by the state.

Example:  Several states have run afoul of the 4th amendment, and got hammered in court.

So IF the Supremes find on behalf of the PEOPLE and that they DO have a RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms some states are going to be VERY upset.

[SIG220]

Originally posted by AKIron
I already plan to move to Idaho next January. I'd better start buying up some land in case the SC rules poorly. Land prices there may skyrocket.

Texas is not a gun friendly state??

Oregon ( where I live ) is actually quite liberal in many ways.   But at least so far, our gun laws have remained excellent.  Instant background checks, no waiting periods, shall issue concealed carry permits.  Even the ownership of fully automatic firearms is not outlawed.

Land and housing in Idaho, though, is amazingly cheap.    

Here is a photo of a beautiful one year old 2,400 sq ft house that I looked at recently in Idaho, that was for sale for only $199,000   It was really a well made home.  

Here is the view from the front:





It had great RV Parking:





And a huge backyard too:





Kitchen was great:





And the bathroom was fantastic:





If things ever go downhill here in Oregon, I will probably move there too.


SIG 220