No, did not think of that. I'll give it a try. Ctrl + (what)?
2nd Amendment: For the militia, or because of the militia?
- Thread starter grampajack
- Start date
- Status
Good Ol' Boy
Member
I personally like Cooper's take on the subject....
"All the people constitute the militia - according to the Founding Fathers. Therefore every able-bodied man has a duty under the Constitution to become part of the 'well-regulated' militia, specifically to understand and perform well with the individual weapon currently issued to the regular establishment .... Thus one who has not qualified himself with the M-16 may not be considered to be a responsible citizen."
...but I realize that may not take well here.
"All the people constitute the militia - according to the Founding Fathers. Therefore every able-bodied man has a duty under the Constitution to become part of the 'well-regulated' militia, specifically to understand and perform well with the individual weapon currently issued to the regular establishment .... Thus one who has not qualified himself with the M-16 may not be considered to be a responsible citizen."
...but I realize that may not take well here.
OP
OP
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
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.
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.
CopperFouling
Member
On second thought, never mind.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
I have been wrong before, but the way I read it is the CITIZENS are the "well regulated militia". It is not referring to any Federal or State operated "militia", or army.
The purpose of the citizen run militia is to stand up to any State or Federal operated army, should the need arise.
And since ALL citizens are (or can be) part of the "well regulated militia" than they/we need to be armed.
CapnMac
Member
That alternate view of "militia" may come from British feudalism.
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.
Those militias were separate from the standing Regiments of the Royal Army.
Calling them up was quite serious, as food and other production would likely suffer, even for a levy of 1 in 10 or 1 in 20. Their service was meant to be "for the duration" as a result.
Luckily, we have the words of Madison, Adams, Washington, Coxe, et al, to give us our American definition of militia.
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.
Those militias were separate from the standing Regiments of the Royal Army.
Calling them up was quite serious, as food and other production would likely suffer, even for a levy of 1 in 10 or 1 in 20. Their service was meant to be "for the duration" as a result.
Luckily, we have the words of Madison, Adams, Washington, Coxe, et al, to give us our American definition of militia.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
It helps to remember, that back in those days, politicians (and to a lesser extent the average Joe) were intelligent enough to hold more than a single thought in their heads at one time. It also helps to remember that the Bill of Rights was not a 'descriptive' document laying out the function of the government like the Constitution, but a persuasive argument in favor of ratification of that document, at a time when a large number of colonists were skeptical of joining a Union. Rather than "we need guns to defend against tyranny!" or "we need to ban the guns for safety!" it was a multi-faceted compromise that reflected the realities of Republican government (multiple facets & tiers are a recurring theme in the structure of our government for the same reason)
The role of the militia post-independence was controversial, so the prefatory clause was included in the 2nd Amendment to clarify their place in the new government; they would serve their local states in providing organized defense against large threats (against invaders, insurrection, and military coup), but would be sustained by a freely armed populace who would retain the benefits of distributed defense against local threats (crime, native attacks, farm utility, resistance to control by organized tyranny). They could temporarily (later permanently) be called into service against truly existential threats to the whole nation in the form of the army.
Thus, even if the stated justification for the RKBA they bothered to list in the bill of rights became mooted by the rise of a professional military, that does not change the other aspects of its importance. It's just that those other aspects weren't in dispute to the point they needed to be addressed explicitly at the "point of sale." You generally won't find such justifications anywhere but the Bill of Rights and preachy preamble to the Constitution, and that is because it was not the purpose of our founding documents to justify themselves; that task was left to the voters who ratified them after much debate, except in ten key areas where they felt additional explicit attention going forward was necessary.
The whole focus on the prefatory clause falls into the old trap of treating our early documents' language as "permissive" rather than "restrictive." This is a favorite analytical approach by statists who automatically reject the fundamental principle of limited government, and fail to recognize the language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights only serves to grant authority to the government when explicitly stated so. That is why they can believe the 'militia clause' is the only, or even the most important, binding justification for our uninfringed right to keep and bear arms. I would submit that it is in reality the weakest justification; so weak and non-self-evident, that it had to be explicitly included in the contractual language upon ratification (the better arguments like self defense, sustenance, and individual liberty were not controversial, and already covered adequately by the operative clause in the amendment). This would support the absence of such justifications in many of the other amendments, most notably the 1st amendment (there is no "a well-educated electorate being necessary to the..." phrasing of any sort; just a bar on [federal] congressional laws restricting speech or free association)
TCB
The role of the militia post-independence was controversial, so the prefatory clause was included in the 2nd Amendment to clarify their place in the new government; they would serve their local states in providing organized defense against large threats (against invaders, insurrection, and military coup), but would be sustained by a freely armed populace who would retain the benefits of distributed defense against local threats (crime, native attacks, farm utility, resistance to control by organized tyranny). They could temporarily (later permanently) be called into service against truly existential threats to the whole nation in the form of the army.
Thus, even if the stated justification for the RKBA they bothered to list in the bill of rights became mooted by the rise of a professional military, that does not change the other aspects of its importance. It's just that those other aspects weren't in dispute to the point they needed to be addressed explicitly at the "point of sale." You generally won't find such justifications anywhere but the Bill of Rights and preachy preamble to the Constitution, and that is because it was not the purpose of our founding documents to justify themselves; that task was left to the voters who ratified them after much debate, except in ten key areas where they felt additional explicit attention going forward was necessary.
The whole focus on the prefatory clause falls into the old trap of treating our early documents' language as "permissive" rather than "restrictive." This is a favorite analytical approach by statists who automatically reject the fundamental principle of limited government, and fail to recognize the language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights only serves to grant authority to the government when explicitly stated so. That is why they can believe the 'militia clause' is the only, or even the most important, binding justification for our uninfringed right to keep and bear arms. I would submit that it is in reality the weakest justification; so weak and non-self-evident, that it had to be explicitly included in the contractual language upon ratification (the better arguments like self defense, sustenance, and individual liberty were not controversial, and already covered adequately by the operative clause in the amendment). This would support the absence of such justifications in many of the other amendments, most notably the 1st amendment (there is no "a well-educated electorate being necessary to the..." phrasing of any sort; just a bar on [federal] congressional laws restricting speech or free association)
TCB
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Sounds like a multilevel-marketing scam, doesn't it? Only peddling "Divine Right" instead of Amway products, and man-hours instead of dollars, lol.
TCB
CoalTrain49
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
RPRNY
Member
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! ;-)
OP
OP
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
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.
It's important to keep the historical perspective of the day in mind: we had just overthrown a government which had become oppressive - the Crown had gone above and beyond to create a new class of citizens in the colonies which didn't have the rights to those at home in England.
Oppressive taxation. Usurpation of the Rights as outlined in the Magna Carta. Wholesale trickery where the citizens of Boston had their arms locked up. Actually being fired on by the Crown's Army, and then having mercenaries from Germany sent to further suppress our protests, up to and including having them live in our houses. We might have to go out and work the fields or our trade, they lounged around in our homes when not assigned duties and harassing our families. We had to feed them and wash their laundry, too.
In that light the individual right to keep and bear arms was thoroughly understood. Watching as foraging parties swept down your lane to break into your farm stealing your cattle and crops wasn't something you wanted to idly stand by and tolerate. Much less their advances and improprieties -
The chickens have come home to roost, with the immigrants in Europe the shoe is now on the other foot. Some of the exact same things are happening now, wives and daughters avoid being out in public and are no longer considered safe just going to work. Their governments are repressing any mention of it in social media just as much as some internet vendors are suppressing videos or even a news story over it. As if denial will make it all go away.
It didn't then and it won't now. There is a movement in Europe to incorporate the right to keep and bear arms in their constitutions, too, in the face of this new reality. We did it for exactly the same reasons - a standing army was literally in our midst, eating at our table and eyeing our wives and daughters. What red blooded human male would not want to address it? Czech or Pennsylvanian, the same thoughts and principals are involved.
For a quick view of what it's like right now to be a citizen with no rights and certainly no arms to resist, look to Venezuela where a small minority voted to install a monarchial despot under the Communist banner. Without the 2A we could very well be on that timeline - but with it we are a force to be reckoned with and we are not ignored. If anything those who are watching us and reflecting on our political issues now understand one thing - we are a nation armed, and we can easily resist those who attempt to overthrow our government. If ANYTHING, we have pushed back much harder than our opponents thought we could. Which may have well triggered their current attempts to further their agenda - it was either now or never.
It's never, as we well know it. They can double down all they want - bluntly, we have guns. Push too far and it won't go well for them, any more than the British and Germans.
Who is the militia? We are, everyone who carries daily and who's employment can't bar them from it. Despite the consequences.
Oppressive taxation. Usurpation of the Rights as outlined in the Magna Carta. Wholesale trickery where the citizens of Boston had their arms locked up. Actually being fired on by the Crown's Army, and then having mercenaries from Germany sent to further suppress our protests, up to and including having them live in our houses. We might have to go out and work the fields or our trade, they lounged around in our homes when not assigned duties and harassing our families. We had to feed them and wash their laundry, too.
In that light the individual right to keep and bear arms was thoroughly understood. Watching as foraging parties swept down your lane to break into your farm stealing your cattle and crops wasn't something you wanted to idly stand by and tolerate. Much less their advances and improprieties -
The chickens have come home to roost, with the immigrants in Europe the shoe is now on the other foot. Some of the exact same things are happening now, wives and daughters avoid being out in public and are no longer considered safe just going to work. Their governments are repressing any mention of it in social media just as much as some internet vendors are suppressing videos or even a news story over it. As if denial will make it all go away.
It didn't then and it won't now. There is a movement in Europe to incorporate the right to keep and bear arms in their constitutions, too, in the face of this new reality. We did it for exactly the same reasons - a standing army was literally in our midst, eating at our table and eyeing our wives and daughters. What red blooded human male would not want to address it? Czech or Pennsylvanian, the same thoughts and principals are involved.
For a quick view of what it's like right now to be a citizen with no rights and certainly no arms to resist, look to Venezuela where a small minority voted to install a monarchial despot under the Communist banner. Without the 2A we could very well be on that timeline - but with it we are a force to be reckoned with and we are not ignored. If anything those who are watching us and reflecting on our political issues now understand one thing - we are a nation armed, and we can easily resist those who attempt to overthrow our government. If ANYTHING, we have pushed back much harder than our opponents thought we could. Which may have well triggered their current attempts to further their agenda - it was either now or never.
It's never, as we well know it. They can double down all they want - bluntly, we have guns. Push too far and it won't go well for them, any more than the British and Germans.
Who is the militia? We are, everyone who carries daily and who's employment can't bar them from it. Despite the consequences.
ofitg
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 445
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.
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.
Last edited:
bassjam
Member
The militia was all men between the ages of 18 and 45. Those men were required to buy, with their own money, a musket, powder, and ammunition. The Militia Act of 1792 spells it out pretty clearly:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Unit.../Volume_1/2nd_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_33
"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia"
"That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder"
So no, the 2nd Amendment is not to keep the militia in check. Rather it was to ensure that the Federal Government could not disarm the people, many of whom comprised the militia.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Unit.../Volume_1/2nd_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_33
"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia"
"That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder"
So no, the 2nd Amendment is not to keep the militia in check. Rather it was to ensure that the Federal Government could not disarm the people, many of whom comprised the militia.
AlexanderA
Member
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.
I like the result in the Heller case. I don't like Scalia's reasoning in that case. For someone who was touted as a great constitutional scholar, his logic -- or lack thereof -- was disappointing. It's as if he wanted to support gun rights, but only up to a predetermined point. To set this kind of limit, he had to negate the militia clause. Given due weight, the militia clause would mean that individuals would have the right to own anything that the regular army owned. Scalia obviously didn't want to go there. (And it's almost certain that a majority of the Court wouldn't have gone along with such an interpretation.) So we ended up with pretzel logic.
The Heller case established one, and only one, red line -- that the government could not absolutely prohibit the keeping of an ordinary handgun in the home. (It could regulate such a keeping.) Note that handguns are only marginally useful militarily. Therefore the Heller case had nothing to do with militias.
Last edited:
If we are going to get nit picky...it was white men...I am not going to bother to see if they had to be property owners or not...I really don't remember.
The Militia as referred to in Article I is the National Guard. That is the organized militia as that is the Federal government arns, trains, and equips. Title 10 defines the unorganized militia.
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.
AlexanderA
Member
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.
RPRNY
Member
While there is a strong school of thought in disagreement with you, I am fully aligned and believe that both grammar and contextual interpretation fully support your conclusion. As I said above, if the sentence read "The price of tea in China being variable, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" it would have no different meaning with regard to the prohibition on the government from contravening the unalienable right of the individual to keep and bear arms, for a whole host of reasons, which may or may not include participation in a militia.
CoalTrain49
Member
I knew my interpretation would be unpopular here.
And I read post #8. The fact is that everything in the BOR was written with intent. Legislative intent has weight here whether you agree with it or not. I don't believe it is conditional but it clearly shows intent. In the war of 1812, 86% of the army was comprised of state militia. There were 528,000 men who fought in the war of 1812. When war was declared there were only 7000 men in the federal army. At that point in time the federal government relied on state controlled militias for the defense of the nation, 21 years after the BOR was ratified. There was a huge disagreement over weather the federal gov't even had the authority to draft the state militia into federal service. The governors of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island refused to order out militia except for the defense of their respective States. The governors sited states rights of all things. Andrew Jackson was a militia commander. National defense in 1812 was viewed by the state militias a distasteful duty which was evident by the high desertion rate during the war of 1812.
In those times the militia was comprised of citizens of the states and controlled by those states for the defense of those states against all manner of things. I suppose that could mean a federal army but that didn't exist in that time and lots of people were opposed to it. People weren't viewed as citizens of a nation but citizens of a state in those days. So the militia was the people governed by the states when the BOR was written. In that respect your interpretation is correct but unfortunately we are dealing with the term militia and not the individual. I can see where that confuses many people but the separation of power was between the states and the federal gov't, not individuals and the federal gov't. Only until recently has this idea that the BOR reached the individual cutting through states rights. This country was supposed to be a republic per the constitution.
This has nothing to do with the last president or me but thanks for the compliment anyway. It has to do with the intent of the framers of the constitution. It has been claimed that the framers were great visionary's. I will admit that they were some pretty sharp fellows and the great minds of their time but they couldn't see into future. All they had to go on was what history had placed in front of them and a republic was the best they could come up with. Personally I think it was brilliant as the French revolution didn't begin until 1789.
Last edited:
RPRNY
Member
Well, not just unpopular. Entirely unsupported by fact. But I will leave it there in the interests of civility.
OP
OP
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
I think there's always been a mystery as to why the 2nd Amendment refers to "a well regulated militia," and it only makes sense if you assume it to be the federally armed and trained militia of Art 1. Farmers with muskets who are unorganized can hardly be called "well organized." That just doesn't make any sense.
Food for thought. The Bill of Rights was enacted after the Constitution was ratified, and many of our founding fathers didn't like it. But they had to accept it because the states demanded it, because many felt that the Constitution lacked a backbone, and they were wary of letting the federal government have a military and/or police force of any kind. In a way, the 2nd Amendment seems to have been the states' direct response to Art 1, as if to say, "Okay, you can have your federally trained militia, as we agree it's necessary to protect the nation, but we all have guns and we're keeping a close eye on you."
This context also puts our founding fathers' visionary abilities into the realm of psychic. I can't help but be reminded of National Guard troops confiscating guns from their own communities after Katrina, and not one person refused the order. It's as if our founders saw this coming, and for that reason they wrote the Bill of Rights.
CoalTrain49
Member
Actually it is a pretty simple constitution. One that allowed the people to govern them selves through their state representatives.
It was a matter of money. The federal gov't was almost broke in 1812. They had to entice people to enlist by giving them grants of land.
The federal gov't had virtually no army or navy in 1812. The reason is congress didn't want to spend the money to do that. Actually they didn't have the money to do that until around 1815. To suggest that it was the plan from the beginning isn't exactly supported by the articles.
Sounds to me like federal gov't didn't really want to pay for having an army employed for longer than two years. Why else would they leave the training and appointment of officers up to the states. Per the articles.
The fact is the federal government was relying on the state militias for a national defense until after the war of 1812. The wording in 2A and Art 1 supports that premise. It just didn't work out real well.
A lot of people will agree with me about this. Maybe not too many here though.
I don't think it's a real good idea to push the SC to interpret this, being constitutional scholars and all.
Last edited:
PaFrank
Member
In order to fully understand the meaning of the phrase, you have to go get a dictionary from 1770.... In the law, the words mean what the words meant at the time the law was written.. In 1770 the word "militia" meant "the people". This was often referenced in the letters of some of our founding fathers...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked