A well regulated militia today?
- Thread starter azredhawk44
- Start date
Language changes over time...
And while we may use the same words, the generally understood meaning of those words can (and often have) changed. Ask anyone in the US to define the word "gay" today, and look at the definition of the word 100 years ago, and odds are you will be talking about two widely different things.
In the days of our Founding Fathers, the term "well regulated" was understood to mean something quite different than the image those words evoke today. Today, the focus of the word "regulated" has to do mainly with rules, laws, and organization. Official oversight or direction. Those kinds of things are the common definition today. But still in limited use today is a less common definition, and one very similar to the one understood by the Founders. The use of the word "regulated" as used by gunsmiths, to describe the process of getting a rifle to shoot to the sights. Today the word "regulated" is used for getting both barrels of a double rifle to shoot to the same point of aim, with a specific load, at a specified distance. Today we use "sighting in" commonly to describe regulating a single barrel rifle, and reserve the word "regulating" for the trial and error process of shooting, gunsmith work, more shooting, more work, etc. needed for a double rifle.
To the people of the era, "well regulated" meant more than just having a gun and knowing how to shoot, although this was a important part of it. It meant that the citizen soldier not only had a gun and knew how to use it, but he also came to muster with his camp gear, and a knowledge of basic military drill and order. Well regulated meant capable of operating properly (like a well regulated rifle), so that little or no further work (training) was needed in order to be of use to the state.
Citizens who answer the call with but their rifle are not as useful to the state, and they may not be of any immediate use, until they are further equipped and trained.
The Founders considered a "well regulated Militia" necessary, and so the individual right to keep and bear arms critical to the people capability to provide a well regulated militia in time of need. Not only viewed as a natural right, the right to arms codified in law allowed the state to escape the expense in time and money needed to equip and train (to regulate) militiamen.
Remember that the 2nd Amendment grants us (the citizens) NO RIGHTS. We already have the right to arms, simply by drawing breath. It is a natural (or God given if you prefer) right, and the 2nd Amendment is a written check on the ambitions of government. Not the citizens, the government. It does not tell us we may be armed, it tells the government that it may NOT restrict our right to arms.
Consider the interesting difference in the enforcement language between the 1st and 2nd Amendments. This should give you some idea where the collective heads of the Founders were at. "Congress shall make no law" vs "shall not be infringed".
We routinely accept some infringement on our 1st Amendment rights for the orderly conduct of society. This is reasonable, and prudent, as the Constitution says "shall make no law", allowing some latitude on the subject. "Shall not be infringed" does not seem to allow any latitude, but we have and do accept some infringements on the right to arms. Why are so many so concerned with "protecting" some of their rights (1st Amendment), and not ALL of their rights?
If they can trample one, they can trample all. Yet so many refuse to see, or see and hypocritically refuse to admit, and only focus on those that interest them.
We wouldn't be where we are today if we were still the same people who rebelled against English rule 230 years ago. On the other hand, we wouldn't be where we are today if we were still the same people who rebelled against English rule 230 years ago. We are vastly better off in some ways, and worse off in others. How important each is to us is a matter of point of view. My point of view is that there are some things that really matter, and our right to arms, free of govt incursion on the exercise thereof, is one of them.
The only proper place for govt restriction of our right to arms is those individuals who have demonstrated their lack of a capability for responsible ownership and use. Anything else is prior restraint, and implies that we lack the ability to manage our own affairs, like children, except that children are expected to learn and become responsible, while we are apparently considered incapable of that. Personally, I find that rather insulting.
And while we may use the same words, the generally understood meaning of those words can (and often have) changed. Ask anyone in the US to define the word "gay" today, and look at the definition of the word 100 years ago, and odds are you will be talking about two widely different things.
In the days of our Founding Fathers, the term "well regulated" was understood to mean something quite different than the image those words evoke today. Today, the focus of the word "regulated" has to do mainly with rules, laws, and organization. Official oversight or direction. Those kinds of things are the common definition today. But still in limited use today is a less common definition, and one very similar to the one understood by the Founders. The use of the word "regulated" as used by gunsmiths, to describe the process of getting a rifle to shoot to the sights. Today the word "regulated" is used for getting both barrels of a double rifle to shoot to the same point of aim, with a specific load, at a specified distance. Today we use "sighting in" commonly to describe regulating a single barrel rifle, and reserve the word "regulating" for the trial and error process of shooting, gunsmith work, more shooting, more work, etc. needed for a double rifle.
To the people of the era, "well regulated" meant more than just having a gun and knowing how to shoot, although this was a important part of it. It meant that the citizen soldier not only had a gun and knew how to use it, but he also came to muster with his camp gear, and a knowledge of basic military drill and order. Well regulated meant capable of operating properly (like a well regulated rifle), so that little or no further work (training) was needed in order to be of use to the state.
Citizens who answer the call with but their rifle are not as useful to the state, and they may not be of any immediate use, until they are further equipped and trained.
The Founders considered a "well regulated Militia" necessary, and so the individual right to keep and bear arms critical to the people capability to provide a well regulated militia in time of need. Not only viewed as a natural right, the right to arms codified in law allowed the state to escape the expense in time and money needed to equip and train (to regulate) militiamen.
Remember that the 2nd Amendment grants us (the citizens) NO RIGHTS. We already have the right to arms, simply by drawing breath. It is a natural (or God given if you prefer) right, and the 2nd Amendment is a written check on the ambitions of government. Not the citizens, the government. It does not tell us we may be armed, it tells the government that it may NOT restrict our right to arms.
Consider the interesting difference in the enforcement language between the 1st and 2nd Amendments. This should give you some idea where the collective heads of the Founders were at. "Congress shall make no law" vs "shall not be infringed".
We routinely accept some infringement on our 1st Amendment rights for the orderly conduct of society. This is reasonable, and prudent, as the Constitution says "shall make no law", allowing some latitude on the subject. "Shall not be infringed" does not seem to allow any latitude, but we have and do accept some infringements on the right to arms. Why are so many so concerned with "protecting" some of their rights (1st Amendment), and not ALL of their rights?
If they can trample one, they can trample all. Yet so many refuse to see, or see and hypocritically refuse to admit, and only focus on those that interest them.
We wouldn't be where we are today if we were still the same people who rebelled against English rule 230 years ago. On the other hand, we wouldn't be where we are today if we were still the same people who rebelled against English rule 230 years ago. We are vastly better off in some ways, and worse off in others. How important each is to us is a matter of point of view. My point of view is that there are some things that really matter, and our right to arms, free of govt incursion on the exercise thereof, is one of them.
The only proper place for govt restriction of our right to arms is those individuals who have demonstrated their lack of a capability for responsible ownership and use. Anything else is prior restraint, and implies that we lack the ability to manage our own affairs, like children, except that children are expected to learn and become responsible, while we are apparently considered incapable of that. Personally, I find that rather insulting.
Here's the problem..
- the Congress has changed the meaning of "the Militia"; they have re-created it in Title 10 SubA Ch 13
- the Congress has provided for organizing and disciplining and training the new militia - in Title 32
- the COngress has provided for it being called forth - in Title 10 SubA Ch 15
So, what aren't they doing that they were supposed to? The problem stems from the people accepting the whole "NG is the Militia" in the 1st place. The Constitutional system has been changed, so it follows other aspects have been affected.
azredhawk44
Moderator
shield20:
Yeah, congress divided the militia into the NG and the unorganized militia, then made a bunch of rules for procurement of NG supplies to be parallel with the Army or Air Force. I went and read your referenced sections of US code. Thank you, btw.
They aren't respecting the right of the unorganized militia to KBA. They are treading on ground reserved to the States for the States to organize state militias or state guards.
If congress left it alone as "Organized Militia = NG, and Unorganized Militia = the rest of us," that still leaves room for the unorganized militia to KBA as it sees fit and necessary on an individual basis. But, we start getting introduced to the 1986 FOPA banning new machine guns, the 1934 GCA, the 1994 AWB, and HR1022 along with a couple other Federal laws in the bill phase right now.
Does Congress have the authority to declare (since it is delegated the power to procure and regulate the militia's equipment) that the unorganized militia is not to be issued firearms?
Also, this quote:
The SCOTUS points directly to the right of the States to regulate and operate militias as they see fit with this statement, clearly identifying that despite Congress' separation of the organized / unorganized militia, the states have the right to further organize the unorganized militia.
It just seems like a backdoor safeguard against federal handgun legislation if CCW rosters and/or hunt license registrations of each state were officially recognized as members of state militia. The language used by the justices writing this document appears to confirm the right of the states to organize their own militias independent of the federal structure.
And... if a state has a right to organize a militia, then does a county or a city? When does Federal law illegally infringe upon the right of the state/county/city to arm and equip its militia members as it sees fit? And on a more obstract level, when does a state law or county ordnance infringe upon a smaller government to organize a militia?
There's just got to be a way to add the mantle of "militia member" to every gun owning member of American society, and to spread its protection to new potential gun owners in a simple way.
Yeah, congress divided the militia into the NG and the unorganized militia, then made a bunch of rules for procurement of NG supplies to be parallel with the Army or Air Force. I went and read your referenced sections of US code. Thank you, btw.
They aren't respecting the right of the unorganized militia to KBA. They are treading on ground reserved to the States for the States to organize state militias or state guards.
If congress left it alone as "Organized Militia = NG, and Unorganized Militia = the rest of us," that still leaves room for the unorganized militia to KBA as it sees fit and necessary on an individual basis. But, we start getting introduced to the 1986 FOPA banning new machine guns, the 1934 GCA, the 1994 AWB, and HR1022 along with a couple other Federal laws in the bill phase right now.
Does Congress have the authority to declare (since it is delegated the power to procure and regulate the militia's equipment) that the unorganized militia is not to be issued firearms?
Also, this quote:
poses another key point of potential conflict. "Whether the following provisions...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia..."
The SCOTUS points directly to the right of the States to regulate and operate militias as they see fit with this statement, clearly identifying that despite Congress' separation of the organized / unorganized militia, the states have the right to further organize the unorganized militia.
It just seems like a backdoor safeguard against federal handgun legislation if CCW rosters and/or hunt license registrations of each state were officially recognized as members of state militia. The language used by the justices writing this document appears to confirm the right of the states to organize their own militias independent of the federal structure.
And... if a state has a right to organize a militia, then does a county or a city? When does Federal law illegally infringe upon the right of the state/county/city to arm and equip its militia members as it sees fit? And on a more obstract level, when does a state law or county ordnance infringe upon a smaller government to organize a militia?
There's just got to be a way to add the mantle of "militia member" to every gun owning member of American society, and to spread its protection to new potential gun owners in a simple way.
CrazyIvan007
New member
Personally, if I lived in a place which outlawed my firearms, I wouldn't be living there very long. It is only a matter of time before they do something worse. I don't want to provide my tax money, promote their city/state, sponsor such idiot politicians, nor put myself in danger by allowing myself to be forced to disarm myself.
I've always liked Montana. Would be a good excuse to go there.
Now, if they left noplace for me to enjoy my life, my rights and my country, then it would become time for us to take them/it back, and I believe many other Americans would be with me.
I've always liked Montana. Would be a good excuse to go there.
Now, if they left noplace for me to enjoy my life, my rights and my country, then it would become time for us to take them/it back, and I believe many other Americans would be with me.
Of concern to many of the Framers (anti-federalists) was the open-ended language of Art. I Section 8 clause 16: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia..."
If the Congress so desired, they could neglect the Militia entirely. The "Militia" talked of within the constitution is what we now call the unorganized militia, by statute today.
The second amendment is about that fear. If the individual has the right to keep and bear arms, then even by neglect, the militia is armed and may be called into service by the State or the Federal governments.
It is quite apparent, that those fears have long been realized. The Congress has not provided for the organization, the arming or the disciplining of the militia.
NB: that may well be one of the arguments by Heller that answers very directly the question posed by the Court.
If the Congress so desired, they could neglect the Militia entirely. The "Militia" talked of within the constitution is what we now call the unorganized militia, by statute today.
The second amendment is about that fear. If the individual has the right to keep and bear arms, then even by neglect, the militia is armed and may be called into service by the State or the Federal governments.
It is quite apparent, that those fears have long been realized. The Congress has not provided for the organization, the arming or the disciplining of the militia.
NB: that may well be one of the arguments by Heller that answers very directly the question posed by the Court.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
My take on the meaning of the phrase "well regulated" was that it was intended to mean: "under tight civilian control."
The anti-federalists feared that over time, the Federal government would form a standing army that would eventually be used as a tool of oppression against the people.
Therefore the proper form of a military suitable for the defense of a free people was a militia, under tight civilian control by virtue of being composed of a broad spectrum of the populace. The only way to achieve this was for the general populace to have an absolute right to keep and bear arms.
The second amendment was written to incorporate these ideas.