A well regulated militia - what does that mean?

L

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
OK, we are all familiar with the 2nd - or are we?

As I understand the meaning of The Founders, "well regulated" meant that there was an inherent training requirement to the militia - that everyone such associated would be trained in the proper use of their arms - that all arms would be functional & that the safety & military aspects were commonplace in all of their associative activities.

Does that call for mandated training courses or do we all assume the personal responsibility to be trained adequately?

Is training, by government mandate an infringement on our 2nd rights (or a requirement thereby its definition) or should it be left in the hands of each responsible individual?

And so, into the breach .....
 
I take it to mean that if people are not allowed to own arms, then naturally they will not be proficient with them. The exact reason that the Swiss scared the hell out of Hitler.

Or maybe not.
 
The militia is an instrument of a community in its most basic form. A village, a town, etc. The village or town makes the rules for the militia, elects its officers, and determines how often it drills. It is regulated to the point the community thinks it is necessary.
 
Obviously the important words in the first part of the amendment are "regulated" and "militia". It is important to use the definitions of the era not the currently accepted or contrived definitions. Regulated meant "orderly" or "under rules". Militia meant "the whole body of able bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service".

It is as plain as day what the framers meant. Every individual by law and when called upon by any governmental body, local, state or federal, will become part of a well ordered citizens military group, and each individual must be allowed to keep arms in the case of such emergency. And hunting sure as hell isn't the emergency they were thinking about.
 
Mal are you saying there was no danger of 30million buffalo charging our communities back in 1776? So much for public education.
And to think I bought a 45-70 for buffalo defence.Guess I'll have to go to Afrika for some cape, you wanta go? Have to upgrade to 577 NITRO first, their guerillas really are gorillas.
 
First let us examine the beginning of the amendment and look back to statements made while it was being considered for ratification. To understand it we must look at each word in 'A well regulated militia..'

Militia - We know from Title 10 U.S. Code, S311:
Militia: composition and classes

(a) The milita of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

We have statesmen of the period commenting on the term and its intent:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 1788.

The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistable. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
-- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress August 17, 1789.

This next passage even addresses the 'security of a free state' or the freedom and liberty of a truely free country:

"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the State. Such are a well regulated Militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen, and husbandman; who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
-- James Madison, United States Congress, Bill of Rights Ratification, 1779

Rep. Gerry spoke of the purpose of the militia was to oppose 'the bane of liberty' and Madison spoke of the 'well regulated militia' as those 'who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.' 'Well regulated' may not have the same meaning today as it did over 200 years ago. Well regulated when referring to a shotgun meant that both barrels would hit to the same point of aim at a given distance. A well regulated rifle was an accurate rifle. We could say that the arms that were well regulated performed well, they were good at there 'intended' purpose. The militia can be thought of in the same way. So well regulated does not mean heaped with regulations, but rather good at, as Madison suggests 'well intended', their 'intended' purpose (the intent being to protect freedom and liberty), or even meaning proficient.

The meaning of 'the people' was recently addressed by the Supreme Court. The term 'the people' is used in Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 and 'person' (singular of people) is used in Amendment 5. In a 1990 Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of the term 'the people' as it relates to the Fourth Amendment, Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the intent of the Constitution was to enumerate the rights of individuals. The individual citizens were 'the people' and that it did not just apply to the Fourth Amendment, but to each amendment where the term is used, including our beloved second.

Therefore:
A proficient group of individual free men owning firearms, since they are necessary to guarantee the freedoms and liberty of our country, the rights of those individuals to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed.

In U.S. vs. Miller (1939) the Supreme Court ruled that a short barrelled shotgun is not protected from regulation by the Second Amendment because it was not particularly suitable for use in militia, so the types of arms were determined to be of a type particularly suitable for use in a milita.

As far as the founders intent:

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law abiding deprived the
use of them."
-- Thomas Paine, 1775.

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-- James Madison

And as a result of these thoughts he wrote:

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison, The Federalist #46

Here endeth the lesson.
 
Excellent post Jeff. I saved that one.

In essence, I thought that "Well Regulated" at that time meant "Well Equipped".

If you replace "well regulated" with "well equipped", such as it meant, then it makes sense.


And...there is NO DOUBT what they meant by "militia", because they defined it many times, as stated so well in this thread. So, that is not even worth arguing about.
 
I believe "well-regulated" includes "well-trained". Therefore, I believe the government has a duty to make appropriate training available to us. In fact, I believe it should be mandatory.
 
Yes, it is one of the powers of congress to detail the training required of the Militia by Article 1 section 8. And the states are the ones responsible for providing that training. They have the right to make it mandatory. This was one of the reasons for the 2nd. Our founders believed that a militia system was necessary to preserve liberty. The anti-federalist were afraid of article 1 section 8 in that through over action or inaction the newly created federal government would be able to destroy the militia. But by guaranteeing the right of each individual to own arms (which also implies knowing how to use them), there would always be a pool from which to draw a militia, thereby guaranteeing the existance of the militia and thereby protecting our liberties.

Well-regulated as used in the 2nd means properly functioning.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
When I think of a Militia, I always see the National Gaurd picture of that Minute Man. Standing with one hand on the plow, and the other holding his rifle, ever ready to protect and defend this once great country of our....Least thats what my father(who was career army) taught me to beleive it was.
 
if we were a well regulated Militia
We could all shoot at the local National guard public rifle range.
We could buy surplus ammo at the range
We could be marksman certified there
We could take classes in first aid and emergency drills
We could be called up to assist in disasters

we would be part of the solution

dZ
 
The 2nd Amendment is an example of how far "our" government has gone.

The founding fathers never intended for the Federal government to have the powers that they do today... but little by little over the course of the past 200 years, we have given more and more power to the governments over us.

In many ways, we have become a nation of sheep with the federal and state government as our shepherds.


------------------
Stand against evil, lest evil have its way...
 
Jeff OTMG:

I have to take issue about the S.Ct. ruling in Miller. Mr. Miller did not provide any evidence that the shotgun was a weapon a militia would use. Without evidence the S.Ct. could not rule that it was. Other than that a fine post.
 
I was going to write a brief history of the Miller case here, but it really deserves to be the subject of its own string. Very briefly,Jack Miller was a moon shiner who had
a dummy still set up where he could bring moon shine supplies without the batf finding the real still. Sure enough, BATF tried to bust him ,but the rusted out still at that location had been non functional junk for years.

So there was no still here,a bad bust.

BATF took Miller's stevens savage side by side double barrel 12 gague shotgun , worth
about $5.oo in 1938, and arrested Miller on violation of the National firearms act of 1934; Because Miller has not paid the US Treasury a $200.oo tax & registration fee on
the $5.oo , 16 &1/2 inch barreled shot gun.

The Batf did not have to go back enpty handed ,with yet more egg on its face, this time!
United States VS Miller, District Court, Western District of Arkansas,
Fort Smith Division; Judge Heartsil Ragon
Presiding.
In order to cut out 3 pages of print
I skip to the disposition of the case in lower court.

Mr. Defense Attorny Gutenson, the demurrer
you filed is accordingly sustained.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 violates the SecondAmmendment to the Constitution of the United States. Case dismissed. Mr Miller & Mr. Layton, you are free to go.

Now Jack Miller was a dirt poor moonshiner. He paid Attoury Gutenson only 26.oo, all the money Miller had.

Miller had won, the National Firearms Act of 1934 was an illegal law in voilation of the Second Ammendment of the Constitution.

But , a month later , the feds appealed the case to the US Supreeme Court in Washington Dc.

A week long seach could not find either Jack Miller or his associate Mr Layton , both of whom might possibly have been back up in the woods cooking up a new batch of shine . Any ways, no one could find them. Att. Gutensohn was unwilling to travel
at his own expense from Arkansas to Washington DC , there to defend a missing man for FREE and did not bother to file a typed brief with the Supreme Court, again, for
free.


Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice Mc Reynolds presiding.
For the United States, Att. Gordon Dean.
There was no legal represention for Miller,
Miller himself was missing and never again found by LEO's.No briefs for the defense were ever filed.
An opponent to the govt's challenge
about to be made would have doomed Dean's argument. Without opposition, there was a chance Dean could squeak by.All it would take Dean was some creative manipulation of the facts & some monumental omissions.

Yes ,your Honor. If it please the Court,the District Court's prior dismissal of
this case & the ruling that the National Firearms Act is in contravention to our
Constitution has no rational basis in law.
The NFA levies a tax on the intrastate commerce in sawed off shot guns, & affixes a Fed. stamp to the order as proof that the tax has been paid. THE WEAPON THAT --Mr Miller & Layton transported
in intra state commerce,a double barreled Stevens 12 ga.shot gun having a barrel length of less than 18 inches AND BEARING SERIAL #
76230, is not issued to any military entity
anywhere in our country. TO SAY THAT THIS WEAPON IS PART OF ANY WELL REGULATED MILITIA IS UTTER NONSENCE.

(Fed. prosecuting Att. Dean had just streched the truth as far as he ever had in his professional life).

[Short barrelled shot guns has been used in every military engagement in the past 50 years, BUT WHAT DEAN ACTUALLY HAD SAID
WAS: that Serial # 76230 was not government issue, so that it wasn't really a lie.

Dean also dreaded the question of how a $200.oo tax on a $5.oo gun could be anything but an infringement on the right to keep the weapon. The tax was , after all, 40 times the
cost of the weapon and carried a penality
of both a 5,000.oo fine and a 5 year jail sentence.

Because of Judges with no military or
firearms experience and no opposition legal representation, these questions were neither asked or even considered.

Without opposing counsel, the Court was never told that shotguns with barrells less than 18 inches were used in the military. The Court was never informed that the National Firearms Act of 1934 applied to automaic weapons that were obviously military issue, which would have killed the government's arguement right there. Finally, no one had pointed out , as had District Court Judge
Heartsil Ragon, that militia weapons were ,by defination,the personal arms of the private citizenry, and therefore weather or not a particular weapon was issued to army troops
was completely irrevelant.

The Decision:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrell of less that 18 inches of
length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia ,we can not say that the Second Ammendment guarantees the right to keep & bear such an instrument. Certainly , it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part
of the ordinary military equipment or that
its use could contribute to the common defense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secomd Ammendment is a recognation of the danger of standing armies. Its purpose is to reconize that every citizen has the right
to keep and bear THE SAME TYPE OF BASIC ARMS AS A SOLDIER IN AMODERN MILITARY.

A malitia embodies all able bodied men over the age of 16. Therefore, a militia will always outnumber a standing army by at least 20 to 1.

If the milita is armed with weapons similar to those used ny the individuals
comprising the standing army,it will be impossible for that standing armt to inflict the will of a tyrannical government upon the people.

The Second Ammendment is the guarantee
behind all the other articles in the Bill of Rights. It is the ultimate guarantee that the citizens of the United States will remain free.

GUN CONTROL ,ON THE OTHER HAND, EMPOWERS SLAVERY , by voiding our ultimate guaranttee of freedom.

Source material: The Book by John Ross
"Unintended Consequences" 1996



------------------
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
to preserve life,limb & family.Gun Control Democrats
would prefer that they all die,instead.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"! http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html


[This message has been edited by ernest2 (edited December 19, 1999).]
 
MOD, you are correct that Miller offered no argument, which is where Justice McReynolds got the 'In the absence of any evidence', but they did write 'we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.'
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/sc/307us174.html

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear
such an instrument.

I also inadvertently left out two quotes on Supreme Court rulings that should have been included in the original rant.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic."
--U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, writing for the Court, 1833

"If the right [to keep and bear arms] were limited to those enrolled [in an official state militia], the purpose of this guarantee
might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check."
--Judge Thomas Cooley, 1898


[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited December 19, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top