No, did not think of that. I'll give it a try. Ctrl + (what)?Did you try ctrl f?
No, did not think of that. I'll give it a try. Ctrl + (what)?Did you try ctrl f?
I would add that you have to put yourself in the mindset of the founding fathers to understand the latter interpretation. They never planned for a standing army except for brief periods during actual declared states of war. There was an allowance for a standing navy and a militia. And of course we're all familiar with how the militia has morphed into a full blown standing army.
The militia was their solution to not leave the country defenseless, but it's obvious from Art 1 that their definition of a militia was quite different from the one we use nowadays. It was to be armed and trained by the federal government, but commanded solely by the states. So if the militia were running the way the constitution dictates, the active duty army wouldn't exist, and the National Guard would not have any federal commanders or ever be placed under the command of a federal army, even in wartime. Their commanders would answer directly to the state government, and only the state government.
Again, it seems they viewed a "well regulated militia" as being a necessary evil, that was better than a federal standing army, but still had the potential to be abused. Think about this: if the militia is armed and trained by the feds, as outlined in Art 1, then it is NOT in any way dependent upon the people having the right to bear arms, as the militia's arms are by definition provided by the federal government. It's only if the right to bear arms is meant to protect against the militia that any of this makes any sense at all.
Back in the day, the nobility was expected to be able to raise a levy, of serfs, yeomen and freemen in accordance with their rank. So, a squire had to be able to raise a platoon, about fifty. A knight was meant to raise up a Company, about 100. Baronies were to raise a Battalion (two companies), and so on through Viscompte, Earldom, Duchy and so on.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer so this is JMHO.
When the BOR was ratified the federal gov't didn't have a standing Army. The defense of the country during the revolution was strictly a volunteer force comprised of militias, an army raised from the civilian population. There was no professional army like the British had. Even until the war of 1812 military officers who had military experience had to find other means to support themselves. The federal gov't didn't pay them although they maintained their title and rank. During the war of 1812 each naval officers pay had to be approved by congress individually by name. That war was primarily fought on the high seas. People just naturally took up arms (militias) against the British when they started marching about from their ships.
So in my mind they were referring to the militia, the only army available to the federal gov't at the time. I can see where the RKBA was to provide for a militia, nothing more. As a matter of fact it relieved the federal gov't of paying for a professional army and equipping them. The federal gov't was broke in those days and the whole idea of a professional army wasn't even feasible. The idea was that civilians would be able to keep and bear arms to form a militia for the defense of the country when called.
2A was meant to insure a well regulated militia. That's what it says and that's what it meant.
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 think people don't want to study the history of how it came to be and they twist it around to fit their own interpretation. You can't just cherry pick the parts you like an ignore the rest.
Of course things have changed since then but that doesn't change what was on the ground when 2A was ratified. The closest thing we have to a militia these days is the nat'l guard which was supposed to be under the control of the governor of each state. Again, a republic with a civilian army. The fed has even taken charge of that now.
So does that abrogate a citizens RKBA because we have a professional military now? That is the real question that needs to be answered. My thoughts on that are the first part of 2A sets up the reason for it's existence. If the reason no longer exists it's hard to argue for some other reason when it isn't apparent by the writing.
I suppose that one could argue that at any point in the future if the civilian population wanted to form a militia to combat the federal gov't they would be free to do that but I seriously doubt that was in anyone's mind when 2A was written. I'm not sure they even envisioned a large professional federal army. As a matter of fact I think they envisioned a republic with control of the military by the states. The war of 1812 changed a few things and they realized they needed a navy for sure, if nothing else. The beginning of the end.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer so this is JMHO.
When the BOR was ratified the federal gov't didn't have a standing Army. The defense of the country during the revolution was strictly a volunteer force comprised of militias, an army raised from the civilian population. There was no professional army like the British had. Even until the war of 1812 military officers who had military experience had to find other means to support themselves. The federal gov't didn't pay them although they maintained their title and rank. During the war of 1812 each naval officers pay had to be approved by congress individually by name. That war was primarily fought on the high seas. People just naturally took up arms (militias) against the British when they started marching about from their ships.
So in my mind they were referring to the militia, the only army available to the federal gov't at the time. I can see where the RKBA was to provide for a militia, nothing more. As a matter of fact it relieved the federal gov't of paying for a professional army and equipping them. The federal gov't was broke in those days and the whole idea of a professional army wasn't even feasible. The idea was that civilians would be able to keep and bear arms to form a militia for the defense of the country when called.
2A was meant to insure a well regulated militia. That's what it says and that's what it meant.
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 think people don't want to study the history of how it came to be and they twist it around to fit their own interpretation. You can't just cherry pick the parts you like an ignore the rest.
Of course things have changed since then but that doesn't change what was on the ground when 2A was ratified. The closest thing we have to a militia these days is the nat'l guard which was supposed to be under the control of the governor of each state. Again, a republic with a civilian army. The fed has even taken charge of that now.
So does that abrogate a citizens RKBA because we have a professional military now? That is the real question that needs to be answered. My thoughts on that are the first part of 2A sets up the reason for it's existence. If the reason no longer exists it's hard to argue for some other reason when it isn't apparent by the writing.
I suppose that one could argue that at any point in the future if the civilian population wanted to form a militia to combat the federal gov't they would be free to do that but I seriously doubt that was in anyone's mind when 2A was written. I'm not sure they even envisioned a large professional federal army. As a matter of fact I think they envisioned a republic with control of the military by the states. The war of 1812 changed a few things and they realized they needed a navy for sure, if nothing else. The beginning of the end.
Exactly. This supports what I have been saying: that the "constitutional militia" -- in terms of the 2nd Amendment -- is the entire body of the people. Its defining characteristic is its universality. We haven't had that, in practice, since at least the 1830's. Today, the "constitutional militia" is a theoretical construct. That doesn't make it any less useful as a framework for securing individual gun rights. Individuals, after all, are part of the universal whole.The Framers feared two things: large standing armies and select militias. A select militia was an armed group formed not from the entire population of a jurisdiction by public notice, but selected by some method that might make them unrepresentative of the community, and a threat to lawful government or to the community.
The militia was all men between the ages of 18 and 45.
During the Revolutionary war "militia" and "army regulars" were distinct from each other in the language of the time.
The Federal gov according to the United States Code certainly used to see the Unorganized Militia and "the people" as one and the same per Title 10, Sections 311 and 312. Although I can only find info to the effect that Title 10 USC Sections 311 and 312 were re-numbered 246 and 247, searching Title 10 now I can only find what appears to be an abbreviated form of Sections 246 and 247 compared to the former 311 and 312 on Cornell's Law website. Previously which was very comprehensive when I last viewed it. There was a change in content in 1993 regarding the "Clarification of female members in the National Guard as members of the Militia" - See;
http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=107&page=1656
There is a reference to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, Public Law 114-328, 114th Congress but it is a mile long and no way I can see to search it for keywords only - See;
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ328/html/PLAW-114publ328.htm
But prior to any changes to Sections 311 and 312 the criteria for the Unorganized Militia was very broad indeed and distinct from the Army Reserves and or National Guard or Organized Militia..
That's the way it shakes out in practical terms, today. But that was not the original constitutional theory. When the 2nd Amendment was ratified, in 1791 (and that was before the Militia Act of 1792, BTW), the "militia" was the entire body of the people. (The writings of some of the Founders testify to this.) This was the base, if you will, from which organized military forces could be drawn, as needed. One of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure that this base was well armed before the need arose. Also the government was rather stingy in those days and wanted to pass some of the cost of defense to the individual citizens. Requiring them to supply themselves with muskets, etc., was a form of taxation. Responding to objections to this burdensome aspect, the federal government rather quickly set up a system whereby it would supply arms to the states, for militia use. That was the impetus, among other things, for the establishment of the Springfield and Harpers Ferry Armories.The organized militia, the unorganized militia, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms are 3 different things.
The way the 2A is punctuated there is a separation between the militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This right has nothing to do with being in any militia.
The organized militia, the unorganized militia, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms are 3 different things.
Please read post #8. Boom Boom explains, and cites the relevant portions, of the Constitution that in fact authorized creation of a standing army. Further, your argument that the operative clause is conditional on the predatory clause has been the subject of much study and neither grammar nor jurisprudence support the conclusion that you draw.
The Constitution provided for a standing army. The Second Amendment to the Constitution provided a sense of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention that this was rather distasteful and that a militia was necessary for the security of a free state. It also forbade the state (ie government) from infringing on the unalienable right of the people, not the militia, to keep and bear arms. The first part is waffle. The second part is law.
And don't be so self-deprecating. You may not be a constitutional lawyer, but our last President claimed he was one, yet had never read as far as the first sentence of the first Article. So, by comparison, you, and all of us opining here, are deep constitutional scholars! ;-)
http://www.constitution.org/col/5508_col.htm
From the article -
The Framers feared two things: large standing armies and select militias. A select militia was an armed group formed not from the entire population of a jurisdiction by public notice, but selected by some method that might make them unrepresentative of the community, and a threat to lawful government or to the community. A regular standing army or police force is always a select militia, and it may serve the will of those in power, and be used against the people. Therefore, the Framers intended that the militia should always be able to prevail over the government and its armies or select militias. They did not trust those in power to voluntarily refrain from corruption or the abuses that attend it. The Militia was seen as one of the checks on the power of government, like division of powers between the central and state governments, between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, and between the two houses of the legislative branch.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The militia referred to in Art. 1 was the federal government's select militia. Full-time soldiers, organized and paid by the federal government.
The militia referred to in the Second Amendment were the part-time volunteers, providing their own equipment, organized at the state/local level. See the Militia Act of 1792 - http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
When the War of 1812 broke out, U.S. forces included 7000 full-time federal troops and nearly a half-million militia volunteers.
http://www.constitution.org/col/5508_col.htm
From the article -
The Framers feared two things: large standing armies and select militias. A select militia was an armed group formed not from the entire population of a jurisdiction by public notice, but selected by some method that might make them unrepresentative of the community, and a threat to lawful government or to the community. A regular standing army or police force is always a select militia, and it may serve the will of those in power, and be used against the people. Therefore, the Framers intended that the militia should always be able to prevail over the government and its armies or select militias. They did not trust those in power to voluntarily refrain from corruption or the abuses that attend it. The Militia was seen as one of the checks on the power of government, like division of powers between the central and state governments, between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, and between the two houses of the legislative branch.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The militia referred to in Art. 1 was the federal government's select militia. Full-time soldiers, organized and paid by the federal government.
The militia referred to in the Second Amendment were the part-time volunteers, providing their own equipment, organized at the state/local level. See the Militia Act of 1792 - http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
When the War of 1812 broke out, U.S. forces included 7000 full-time federal troops and nearly a half-million militia volunteers.
They absolutely envisioned the people having to take up arms to fight their own tyrannical government. They had just come out of a constitutional monarchy, so they had no illusions that a simple constitution by itself would keep tyranny at bay. Jefferson actually called for regular government overthrows just to be sure.
Also, the lack of a federal standing army, or a standing army of any kind, wasn't a matter of money, as if they wanted one but just couldn't afford it. The constitution forbids it, and the militia was the means to protect the nation in its absence.
Again, read Art 1. The federal government was charged with training and equipping the militia using federal tax money. It wasn't a money saving venture by any stretch of the imagination. And if the militia is armed by the federal government, then why on earth would it depend on the people themselves for its arms?
Either the militia in Art 1 is different from the militia in the 2nd Amendment, or they're the same thing, and then in that case there's only one logical conclusion. The people weren't given the right to bear arms to provide weapons for the militia; they were given the right to bear arms so as to be able to fight the militia if necessary.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;