2nd Ammendment etymology question

[R-Tex12]

Hi, all -

There is one interpretation of the wording of the Second Ammmendment that I do not recall ever having seen discussed. The wording I'm wondering about is in the first part, where it says, " A well regulated militia...".

It seems that, in most arguments against the Ammendment applying to individual rights, the antis interpret the phrase "well regulated" to mean "strictly controlled" or something similar.

What about the interpretation of the word "regulated" when it means "equipped" or "specified" or "set"? As in the twin barrels of a double rifle being regulated to a certain load. A quick stop by an online dictionary yielded (among others) the following three definitions of the word "regulate".

1. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement.

2. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.

3. To put or maintain in order.

Does anyone know if the word had a generally accepted meaning in the late 1700's that is different from that accepted today? Could the founding fathers have meant that we needed to be well equipped?

Yeah, it's possible I have too much time on my hands! (But I'm striving to become well equipped.)

R-Tex

 

[tyme]

www.guncite.com
Left column, second from the top.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

yep, a well regulated clock keeps good time.

another tact worth exploring is
"what did the individual representatives have to say to the common man
when they returned from the ratification?"

Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789: "...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

 

[R-Tex12]

Thanks, tyme - that's a great site! I wasn't aware of it. Dang, I certainly learn a lot by hanging out here.

Thanks again,

R-Tex

 

[nsmike]

Constitutional Site

Another good site is www.constitution.org look under the sub heading constitutional defense.
Mike

 

[tyme]

Both of those sites are on the front page of the THR Library. (link is in the top right corner next to "Rules of Conduct")

 

[El Tejon]

well regulated=well trained

 

[AZRickD]

To your point:

“General Principles of Constitutional Law†by Thomas 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.â€

“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.â€

Secondarily:

William W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125 (2d ed. 1829). was the author of "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America." His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point. He is quoted by Stephen P. Halbrook in "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Consitutional Right" as follows.

"In the Second Article, it is declared that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state: a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable, yet ... the militia form the palladium of the country .... The
corollary from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. THE PROHIBITION IS GENERAL. NO clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a right to DISARM THE PEOPLE." Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But, if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a

 

[Graystar]

well regulated=well trained

I'd probably agree. Other ways to possibly put it..."organized and trained," or maybe just plain ol' "battle ready."

However it's put, I'd guess that the implication is of an effective fighting force that is capable of being deployed as needed.

 

[iapetus]

I used to be very anti-gun, and at that time I interpreted the "militia" to be refering to the army/national guard/something similar. (Since then I've realised that would be a particularly stupid meaning - when has any government even needed to give the people the right for the government to have an army?)


Since then, I've had a 180 degree change of opinion and become strongly pro-RTBA, and have also read many quotes from Jefferson and people of that time specifically stating that the "militia" is the population as a who (made up of armed individuals).


Interestingly, after becoming pro-RTBA but before reading those quotes, I came up with a third interpretation, in which the "militia" was the army, but the "people" are still individuals.

I interpreted "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."

as: "[Unfortunately] we need an army to protect the State, [but to keep this in check and stop it being misused], the public must also be allowed to arm themselves as well."

(Of course, since then I've seen quotes proving this wasn't exactly the original meaning either, but I think its an interesting interpretation nonetheless, especially as it does seem to be an important idea that they had in mind when making the Amendment.)


Iapetus

 

[El Tejon]

The militia is not the Army. See, e.g., Peprich v. United States. It is not organized, that is the point.

A well-trained militia, composed of the whole body of the people, young, old, men, women, springs forth from the people.

ia, there are plenty of quotes from Madison, who authored the 2nd, as well as other FFs who make your last point exactly.

 

[Desertdog]

When the 2nd Amendment was written, was there really a standing army?
I am sure there were no organized Reserves, National Guard or anything except the Milita, ie; the armed citizens. If you know of any, let us know.

 

[El Tejon]

Desert, yes, however it was tiny, mostly strung out in small garrisons. In fact, when the Brits finally turned over several forts in Ohio and Indiana, there were no American troops immediately available to occupy them.

The FF knew what a standing army, examples from the Bible, Rome, France and England were all cited, was and they all (to a lesser extent Washington) feared one. Even Hamilton writing in the Federalist Papers, who favored a stronger central government argued that the people bearing arms as their right would provide a counterweight to a standing army.

 

[AZRickD]

"Peprich v. United States"

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/perpich.htm

Since 1933, federal law has provided that persons enlisting in a State National Guard unit simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, a part of the Army. The enlistees retain their status as State Guard members unless and until ordered to active federal duty and revert to state status upon being relieved from federal service. The authority to order the Guard to federal duty was limited to periods of national emergency until 1952, when Congress broadly authorized orders "to active duty or active duty for training" without any emergency requirement, but provided that such orders could not be issued without the consent of the governor of the State concerned. After two State Governors refused to consent to federal training missions abroad for their Guard units, the gubernatorial consent requirement was partially repealed in 1986 by the "Montgomery Amendment," which provides that a governor cannot withhold consent with regard to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty. The Governor of Minnesota and the State of Minnesota (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Governor) filed a complaint for injunctive relief, alleging, inter alia, that the Montgomery Amendment had prevented him from withholding his consent to a 1987 federal training mission in Central America for certain members of the State Guard,