What does "well regulated" mean in the 2nd Amendment?

[DonP]

As noted previously in this thread ...

Up until the 20th century the common use of the word "regulated" meant trained or disciplined. So well regulated just meant well trained. When you read the second in that context it makes absolute sense.

They wanted the body of the people to be a well trained militia, able to stand against a tyrannical government or other threat, therefore their individual right to keep and bear arms needed to be absolute.

The "people" needed to be at the top of their game with whatever arms they had at hand. Today's writers and reporters don't, or more likely won't, take the time to look up the histroical context.

Their history classes probably started with the women's movement of the '70's or when the evil USA dropped an atomic bomb in 1945 on the innocent civilians in Japan, for no apparent reason other than to subjugate another race.

In their day-to-day world view Government is all powerful, everything and everybody needs to be controlled or regulated by the government.

When ever I get that kind of question, I ask people to just substitute the word "trained" for "regulated" to bring the concept up to modern common usage. It actually makes some of them go "Oh!, that makes sense".

 

[Keith Wheeler]

Of course, it is the slow methodical revisionism taking place in the media
--both so-called liberal TV and so-called conservative radio-- that accomplishes
the changes in original intent and spirit. It takes both the left and right
hands to disassemble something from its whole and ultimately destroy its
intent. This is the process of socialism itself. Most people who consider
themselves conservative think only liberals are "socialist" when they also
participate in the process of decontruction themselves. The liberal is often
actively conscious of their own participation in it whereas the conservative
being used as a tool by the same mind is not.

Excellent comment.

It seems to me that this happens because so many don't necessarily believe in the foundation of their "party" (or even know them!) but do so because they pick a few issues, some sound bites, and make their choice on that. Then, since they don't understand the fundamentals, they follow the party line. "Ooh, I like guns, and I'm for the free market, I'm a conservative" or "Hey, I think people should be free/equal regardless of color/race/creed/orientation so I'm a liberal". And without thinking through their position, understanding the history, each becomes, like TBL said, a tool controlled by those at the top who may not share the same goals.

But to stay on topic. Not everyone has lost the true meaning of the term "regulated". I'm an electronics engineer; many of the products I develop contain "voltage regulators", because chips like "regulated" voltage. No, not voltage supplies that come with a bunch of innane rules and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tree Frogs, and Semiconductors (or whatever unrelated things we care to abuse by taxing and lumping together), but regulated in the true sense: precise, repeatable, reliable -- on target.

 

[geekWithA.45]

The US DOJ memo of 2004 goes into "well regulated" in detail, starting on page 28.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

 

[bakert]

To me the first step for a militia to be well regulated, you gotta have men with guns. Then you go from there.

 

[bakert]

To me the first step for a militia to be well regulated, you gotta have men(or women) with guns. Then you go from there.

 

[shield20]

SWEET DOJ memo! "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias." "we conclude that the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units."

Basically saying what WE SHOULD ALL KNOW - that my right to keep and bear arms is no more dependent on me being a member of a militia then my right to free expression is dependent on me being a member of the press. Both rights, of course, which are NOT dependent on the Bill of Rights for granting, but FOR PROTECTING.

 

[Derby FALs]

Interesting memo without answering what "regulated" meant. To top that off when the AG spoke of the 2nd in public he had this to say.

"While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise. Like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment protects the rights of 'the people,' which the Supreme Court has noted is a term of art that should be interpreted consistently throughout the Bill of Rights. ... Of course, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests ... just as the First Amendment does not prohibit [government from legislating against] shouting 'fire' in a crowded movie theater. "

Eerily similar to Chuckie Schumer's statement.

"The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble. But I'm also of the view that there are limits on those rights. Just as you can't falsely shout fire in a crowded movie theater, you can put restrictions on who can own guns and how, when, and where they may be possessed."

 

[romma]

Electricity was somewhat scarce

Unless you were flying kites with keys attached to the string...

 

[baz]

I think the meaning of "well regulated" is clear enough. The more important issue is understanding how the second clause relates to a "well regulated militia." Choose your language of choice -- a "well trained militia," a "properly functioning militia," etc. How does the second clause -- the right to keep and bear arms -- contribute to a "properly functioning militia?" This then leads us into understanding the concept of a militia, the purpose it serves in the founder's view of the republic, and why individual ownership of arms is crucial to this purpose.

 

[Derby FALs]

We have a member on the board that believes it means "subject to Federal regulation". I told I thought he was probably the only member to believe that version.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Of course, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests ... just as the First Amendment does not prohibit [government from legislating against] shouting 'fire' in a crowded movie theater. "

This is a common but false analysis. Prohibitions to shouting fire in a crowded theater are not speech prohibitions anymore than laws against conspiracy to murder are speech prohibitions. In both cases, what is violating the law is the intention to cause harm to others, revealed by the words spoken in a particular context. The words themselves are not prohibited, only the criminal intention.

The proof of this is that I can put on a play in a theater and have one of my characters shout "FIRE," without being in violation of law. I can also enter a theater, announce over the loudspeaker that "I am about to shout fire, but do not be alarmed, as this is just a test," and then proceed to shout fire without being in violation of the law. The reason? I clearly had no INTENTION of causing harm. It is the intention to cause harm, not the speech, which is regulated by law.

In the case of firearms "regulations," however, it is the ownership and carrying of certain firearms in a particular context, or outright, which is made criminal. Intention to cause harm is not even an element in those firearms crimes. The DOJ analogy is therefore false to the core. Regulations of firearms ownership, possession and carry are in no way comparable to the prohibition against intentionally harming others by falsely inducing in them the belief that a theater is on fire.

 

[Lord Bodak]

The truth is, it doesn't matter what it means. It has no bearing on the true meaning of the amendment.

Take a look:
http://www.geocities.com/gene_moutoux/diagramamend2.htm

The phrase beginning with "a well-regulated militia" and ending with "a free State" is an absolute phrase, a.k.a. nominative absolute. A nominative absolute consists of a substantive (a noun or noun substitute) and a participle and has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence.

 

[SWMAN]

"What does "well regulated" mean in the 2nd Amendment?

"well regulated" What does mean to you, in the 2nd Amendment?"
__________________

It's whatever the courts say it means.

 

[shermacman]

Of course, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is in fact a fire makes you a good guy.
Having a well regulated gun and being a well regulated person might make you a good guy in another kind of dangerous situation.

 

[Derby FALs]

It's whatever the courts say it means.

How do the courts define "well regulated"?

 

[hugh damright]

I don't concern myself so much with a technical definition of "well regulated" ... I just think of the intent as being a formidable militia.

 

[Master Blaster]

There is no question what it means.

Well organized with a hierarchial command structure, Well armed, well trained, well supplied, and ready for action.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

What does "well regulated" mean in the 2nd Amendment?

Well equipped and ready to fight.

 

[RobW]

"Well regulated": Something ALL our politicos and quite a part of our society lacks.

 

[shield20]

Let's summarize this once and for all...

Hamilton - Federalist #29 (1788 - BEFORE the Bill of Rights)

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. ...This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia...
...
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation ... (side note: notice he says "country" - the damn federalist that he was!)

They HAD regulations for troops (since 1779), they knew what regulations were, and they knew what "well-regulated" meant...clearly and obviously a militia that was well-trained - i.e. disciplined - in/by/under those regulations.

 

[ctdonath]

So well regulated just meant well trained. When you read the second in that context it makes absolute sense.

It particularly make sense in terms of being able to ask the population to pitch in to defense on short notice.

Consider now:
Most males are registered with the Selective Service System (SSS). They can, ostensibly, call you up for service any time. This is consistent with the Constitutional power regarding "calling up the militia". Being an able-bodied male aged 17-45 (that being the formal federal definition of "militia" member currently, and the definition being limited no further than that save identifying the National Guard as a small subset of the militia), and signed up with the SSS, I am personally subject to being formally "called up" to defend my country. Thing is, being aged 39 with no formal military experience, if _I_ get called up, the situation will be dire indeed, and I fully & reasonably expect there will be little time to train and little left to equip me - so if I expect to have a chance at successful defense & survival, I'd darn well better show up with the closest things I can get to an M16 assault rifle and an M40 sniper rifle (unquestionably the standard modern soldier's base gear).

THAT makes the 2nd Amendment's wording make perfect sense, given that "well regulated" means "well equipped, trained, and ready for action" insofar as our government has almost completely neglected "regulation" (both old and new definitions) of the vast majority of the militia (as currently defined by Congress, and that a subset of the Founding Fathers' intent).

 

[ctdonath]

They HAD regulations for troops (since 1779), they knew what regulations were, and they knew what "well-regulated" meant...clearly and obviously a militia that was well-trained - i.e. disciplined - in/by/under those regulations.

Which is exactly what the "collective right" theory hinges on, and even (from one lonely quote amidst a myriad of opposing ones) seems intended by a Founding Father.

One problem.

The gov't isn't doing it's part.

I'm sitting here with a safe full of weaponry, and hundreds of hours of training in applying those weapons anywhere from hand-to-hand to half-a-mile, and beyond generically declaring me part of the militia the fed & state shows no interest in performing any kind of organizing me and millions like me into any sort of "well regulated militia" (modern terms). To the contrary, they at best ignore and at worst try to disarm me.

The whole "regulated = gov't control" argument falls apart precisely because the Bill Of Rights enumerates individual rights which must be respected save unusual and specific conditions. The 2nd Amendment cannot conceivably mean anything if it exists only in turn due to the existence of a government-established militia - which the government neglects into oblivion.

 

[nemoaz]

Unfortunately for the wacky left, "the People" in the constitution mean the people. And just like the other amendments to the constitution, like say the First Amendment (which mentions freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion, freedom of the press not freedom from press that criticizes Democrats, and among other things), the Second Amendment preserves the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms and the right of the STATE to maintain a militia. BTW, the Supreme Court has uniformly stated that the National Guard IS NOT the militia.

 

[dboutwell]

well regulated

To me it means, “ a person or persons, with a single minded intent of protecting themselves or others, from evil or aggression both foreign and domestic “

 

[AZRickD]

General Principles of Constitutional Law by Thomas Cooley, was one of the most popular law school texts of the latter 19th Century.

Said Cooley,

The right of self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.

Further, The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon...If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.

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 the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than 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 in voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.