Should we push to have the wording "Well Regulated" taken out of

[Toots]

2nd Amendment? It is the only Amendment with that particular attachment and some may find it "constraining". I'm sure if we pushed hard enough even Bush* may climb aboard. :silly:

[Toots]

1. I guess I didn't bait the hook well enough

:shrug: I thought this would be a tasty one.

[Must_B_Free]

2. 2nd amendment?

what's that? SOmething to do with rights, right?

[MercutioATC]

3. "In a well-regulated militia"...right to keep and bear arms...

I understand both the intent and the wording and I'm torn. However, I don't have a problem with private gun ownership, with limits (mostly, the limits we currently have in place).

[doc03]

4. That would steal one of their favorite issues.

I just heard a caller on a local talk show with this question. We have a Republican pResident, they control both houses and the supreme court, why haven't they done anything about abortion? The same thing could be said about this issue also. Could it be they don't want to loose these issues so they can divide the nation?

[slackmaster]

5. Republicans have painted themselves into a corner on those issues

From my civil libertarian, atheist perspective I cannot reconcile insisting on personal freedom in one arena while trying to quash it in another. That's why I have never been and will never be a member of the GOP (unless everything changes in bizarre ways not foreseeable at present).

[Paladin]

6. What's The Point?

Isn't one of the RKBA crowd's standard claims that "well regulated" meant something very different in the late 1700's, i.e., "unregulated to the point of everybody on the fucking planet being entitled to a gun"?

[RoeBear]

9. There is this new/old definition too...

..."To bear and keep arms meant in 18th century lingo to store in a common area for the common good."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1029416&mesg_id=1029447

[slackmaster]

7. I actually think you are on to something here

At the minimum we need a clarification from the courts precisely what the Second Amendment means in today's world. I believe its original intent was to deny the federal government the power to make laws that restrict the right of individual citizens to own and carry weapons of all kinds, with the stated purpose of preserving the ability of the states to muster well-equipped militias trained and able to fight effectively.

It was then as it is today up to the states to manage their own state militias. I think a lot of my fellow Californians are not aware that the militia is not just the state National Guard. Even today we are all subject to being called up for militia duty by the Governator if he declares a state of emergency. For example, if a large earthquake caused a major disruption in infrastructure we could all be conscripted with a stroke of his pen.

From the California Military and Veterans Code:

120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

Since I am over 45 I am exempt from conscription but still eligible to serve should I decide to volunteer.

See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=mvc&codebody=&hits=20 for the table of contents for the Military and Veterans Code.

Back to the original question, if it is still in the purview of the states to decide the extent to which they want members of their own unorganized militias (i.e. the people at large) to be armed in the interest of having them available to serve at the pleasure of their governors then I would say all federal gun laws other than those concerned with interstate commerce would be unconstitutional.

My personal preference would be a simple clarification of whether or not the proscription against infringement of the RKBA applies to the states as well as the federal government. A lot has changed since the 18th Century. We have the National Guard, we have a standing army, we have more technologically advanced weapons, we have civil police. None of that existed when the Second Amendment was written.

[hijinks]

8. well regulated means well trained

``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, or even a week, 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. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_29.html

[hansberrym]

10. You are mistaken,

By order of Judges Reinhardt & Walton

the Ministry of Truth has determined that "A well regulated militia" is now a "State military force" and any historical references to the contrary will be deleted. For now just ignore them until Minitrue can complete its work.

Though it might seem that a more plausible interpretation of that phrase might be "A well trained civilian military force" you can be assured that the Ministry of Truth has done your thinking for you and there is no further need for you waste your time on this matter.

Kindly delete any electronic versions of the Federalist or other historical documents containing the phrase "A well regulated militia" and thoroughly destroy any paper copies. As always remember that Big Brother is watching you.

Friends of Judges Reinhardt and Walton can participate in the book burning provide they are members of the "Institutional Press" or employees opf Minitrue. Such persons can also lend a hand in the "editing" by inserting "state militia" everywhere the term "militia" appears in documents relating to the Second Amendment. This will greatly facilitate Minitrue's efforts to assure the people that NO citizen has the right to keep and bear arms.






Note that in addition to your cite, the phrase was used another time in Federalist #29. It was also used in Madison's drafts of the second amendment, in the Virginia consititution of 1776, and the Virginia constitution of 1788. See also the Supreme Court's discussion of "militia" in US v. Miller.





From Madison's draft of the second amendment:
" well regulated militia being the best security of a free country..."

Why would a "STATE military force" be the best security of a free COUNTRY?




from Virginia constitution of 1776:
SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.





from Virginia Constitution of 1788
Sec. 13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. (end quote)


Why would Virginia have a provision of its Bill of Rights declaring that a "State military force" is the safe defence of a free state,
in preference to standing armies?

The distinction between standing forces and forces that are "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion" (as the Supreme Court in Miller defines "militia") is lost on Judge Reinhardt.

[milliner]

11. Bill of Rights

Are there to protect the right of the people to defend themselves against the Government.

Reading the Federalist papers, one of the debates was a standing army and its very existence. The founders were trying to balance a system that was total freedom against some authority to 'control the people'.
You cannot quote a paragraph or two from your favorite Federalist paper to prove your point, but take them in total for what they are, a debate on how far individual rights can go and still maintain rule of law so as not to have localized tyranny.

The 2cnd amendment is to protect the people of the state (and read this to mean all people inside the specific boundaries of the Nation, not those people defined by a state border), again this well regulated militia debate, although it can be called outatime for natural disasters or to defend against foreign invasion, the 2cnd amendment stands with the other 9 amendments as specific enumerated rights of the people to protect them from a government gone bad.

Thats why the 2cnd amendment states in part 'security of a free state', here again the word 'state' doesn't mean a specific state , but the nation as a whole, or state as in a body of people agreeing to the same rules of self governance. The word free means what? Free from who? That statement means free from the federal and state governments, free to protect themselves from a government gone bad. Remember the situation these people ran from, they ran from an overbearing,tyrannical, authoritarian rule. They wanted to create a free society ruled by the people, not a new form of government to rule them at the whim of the rulers.

That is why all the debate about protecting myself from criminals breaking into my home, or wanting to go kill some deer and quail for supper,or wanting to go target shooting with the family, are specious arguments. The 2cnd amendment spells out one of the means for the people to protect themselves from the elected if the need arises

[hansberrym]

12. Definitely NOT specious

(quoting Milliner)
That is why all the debate about protecting myself from criminals breaking into my home, or wanting to go kill some deer and quail for supper,or wanting to go target shooting with the family, are specious arguments. The 2cnd amendment spells out one of the means for the people to protect themselves from the elected if the need arises
(end quote)



There is ample support for the claim that the right to keep and bear arms extends to more than the defense of the state, and most plausibly does include self defense and target shooting.


First, there is no qualifying phrase that would limit the right in the way that you suggest. Note that many state provisions are written with "for the common defence" or "for the defence of themselves and the state" following the "right of the people to keep and bear arms". Note also that the phrase "for the common defence" was proposed but rejected and is not part of the second amendment.



Secondly there are documented discussions of the proper uses of militia and of arms possession by individuals.



Defense of the Constitution, John Adams
”To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, EXCEPT IN PRIVATE SELF-DEFENCE, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws..."
(My emphasis)


Judge Reinhardt of the Silveira majority admits that the below provision from the Address of the Pennsylvania Minority is “unambiguously” directed to an individual right to possess arms for personal purposes.

7) That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers. (my emphasis) (end quote)



Note that all the qualifiers placed after "the right of the people" act to RESTRICT the right. The Second amendment has no such qualifying phrases and so is at least as broad as what is stated above. No one would seriously claim that the second amendment does not also protect the right of citizens to defend the United States as well as the state in which that citizen resides.





Furthermore target shooting is a form of training and the right to train is implied by the language of the amendment. It is not just any militia that is intended, but a "well regulated" militia, so it can not be denied that there is an implied right to train with arms so that we can become well regulated (meaning well trained and well disciplined). Hunting might also be considered a form of training considering its utility in the development of firearms skills.