Help With 2nd Question

[Guest KarlS]

Not being a Constitutional expert by any means, how should I interpret the part of the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> which states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State†? <O:p</O:p

In Virginia the terms “trained to arms†and “well-regulated militia†appears in their Declaration of Rights. North Carolina’s states: “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;<O:p</O:p

So could we unite legally in defense of a free state?<O:p</O:p

“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.â€<O:p</O:p

[LagerHead]

In my opinion, it's very hard to interpret the first part - "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," - without including the second part - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I think Penn and Teller explained it best. To summarize, they said - rather Penn said while Teller pointed and made faces, etc. - that because a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and the people had just succeeded in defeating a well regulated militia of the state, and they may need to do it again in the future, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In short, it's precisely because the state controls the military that the people should be armed.

[1gewehr]

Here is the legal definition of 'militia' according to the US Code:

<b><big>UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A - General Military Law

PART I - ORGANIZATION AND </big>

<big>GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA</big></b><big> </big>

<big>§ 311. Militia: composition and classes </big>

(a) The militia 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 a 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.

( The classes of the militia are --

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;

and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, legally, almost everyone is already a member of the militia. And it is the 'unorganized militia' that the 2nd amendment addresses. After all, there is no need for the Constitution to guarantee a right for the 'organized militia' to have weapons when those weapons are issued by the government.

All the documentation of the period when the Constitution was drafted and adopted agrees that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to guarantee that the 'people' would be as well armed as any standing military. To my mind, that means privately-owned M4, M240, M249, 40mm, .50BMG, etc.

The ONLY argument that the Supreme Court had against Miller in US v Miller was that nobody could show that a short-barrelled shotgun was useful for military service. Keep in mind that when Miller was heard, NOBODY was there to present a defense!!!

[Guest KarlS]

Who's control does the "Unorganized Militia" fall under? Maybe a foolish question but never really understood that segment. Just trying to get my ducks in a row.

[Guest Revelator]

I'd check out last year's Supreme Court Heller decision. Lots of 2nd Amendment interpretation, analysis and historical context, Scalia-style.

[ttocswob]

Who's control does the "Unorganized Militia" fall under? Maybe a foolish question but never really understood that segment. Just trying to get my ducks in a row.

See 10th amendment - the states, or the people.

[Guest KarlS]

Thanks to all for the help on the question. I guess I could fall in the category of one who never really broke down the 2nd and studied it in it's fullest. Shame on me. As with so many others it was an assumed right and took it at it's word.

[graywolf]

To understand what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, it helps to read some of what they said in reference to it. Here are a couple of quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms..." -- Thomas Jefferson

Correction: Jefferson on Arms

[eapking]

Yes, it helps to read other writings of the Founding Fathers on the subject. In those you can really see the individual right manifested quite clearly. Some folks here have some very eloquent signatures bearing them.

The 2A is written in a style, familiar in that time, that today reads kind of backwards. Based on what all I've read on the subject, my take on it is this: Individuals need to own their own weapons to facilitate formation of a militia, to preserve the free state. The use of the word "people" in the 2A declares the right as pertinent to the individual. The word "militia" has various meanings, as seen in other posts above. Some are more organized (or ordained) than others.

The 2A is a bit more coy than some of the individual quotes of our Founding Fathers. They tell you right off who the likely enemy could be.

[1gewehr]

The 2A is a bit more coy than some of the individual quotes of our Founding Fathers. They tell you right off who the likely enemy could be.

It only seems 'coy' because to them the issue was obvious. There is a reason that they allowed the Navy to be a permanent institution, but the Army is required to be re-authorized by Congress annually. A standing Army was seen as a potential tool that could be used to deny liberty to the people. Kind of like our Federal Law enforcement agencies are used.

The Founders would be appalled that Federal Police are allowed to carry and use weapons that are denied to the general populace.

[Guest HexHead]

To understand what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, it helps to read some of what they said in reference to it. Here are a couple of quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms..." -- Thomas Jefferson

Correction: Jefferson on Arms

Why do people take things Jefferson wrote in private letters years after his presidency as if it's the word of God and established law? Just like the whole "separation of church and State" arguments that liberals like to use. The 1st Amendment says nothing about it other than the State won't establish a religion, nor prohibit you from practicing one. Because Jefferson mentioned it as an opinion in a letter, it's treated like it's part of the Constitution.

[midtennchip]

As Patrick suggested, you really need to read Scalia's opinion in Heller. The meaning of the militia clause in the Second Amendment is exactly what is being debated. However, I would caution using state constitutions as an indication of what the United States Constitution means. While helpful (particularly for state constitution provisions written close in time to the Bill of Rights) in determining what some people thought the Second Amendment meant back then, state constitutions (and interpretations thereof) do not have direct bearing on the meaning of the United States Constitution. Several state constitutions provide a greater right than the United States Constitution for many things. For example, the Tennessee constitution has been interpreted to provide a greater right to abortion than the United States Constitution. As a result, just because a state constitution has a very strong "right to arms" provision does not prevent the federal government from restricting gun ownership in a way that would be prohibited under that state's constitution. That is, state constitution only restricts that state, not the feds.

[Guest Straight Shooter]

As for the first part of the Second Amendment, the word "regulated" was not meant to imply regulated by restrictive law, but "equipped" or "outfitted" with proper gear. Each man was to have a "proper rifle and flint", and a certain amount ball and powder.

So, it could also read .. "A well equipped militia, being necessary for the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Now, some of you may ask, rightfuly so, were I get my info. Ive got books on top of books on the subject of the Second Amendment, and have too many sources to go dig up right now. But, at NO TIME did the Founding Fathers EVER try to legally "regulate"....restrict or deny by act of law...ANY legal, lawful person from owning and using, "bearing" , weapons in defense of home and hearth, or nation.

Fact was, back then, it was the odd bird that didnt own and use weapons.

Ive always wanted to AXE a liberal to name ONE person who's name appears on the Constitution that was anti-gun. Or liberal,for that matter.