Someone more legally informed than I please tell me, why?

[JAB]

I'm not sure I want SCOTUS ruling on that. In the same breath they can rule on what part of "A well regulated Militia" is unclear?

 

There is no part of 'A well regulated Militia' that is unclear as 'militia' means the whole of the people - every able bodied citizen who is able to use a weapon.  Further, in order for such a militia to exist it is not only permissible but absolutely necessary that each and every citizen have the right to own and utilize firearms.  Don't take my word for it.  Instead, check out what James Madison (one of the main supporters of adopting the Constitution and a system of Federal government and one of the guys most responsible for writing the Bill of Rights in the first place) had to say on the matter.  From The Federalist # 46 (bolding is mine for emphasis):

 

 

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

 

So there is absolutely nothing vague or open to interpretation about the term 'militia' or its use in this case.  It means 'the free and gallant citizens of America'.  All of us.  Period.  It does not refer to any, formal military organization.  in fact, it is clear that the militia is intended to be a check and a balance against potential over-reach and misuse of a standing, formal military.  Therefore the National Guard - which some people erroneously consider to be what the Second Amendment means by 'militia' - is not only not what the term 'militia' refers to but, by the nature of being a formal military body, is actually the exact opposite.  Further, it is clear that 'well-regulated' means that - once the free citizenry has decided that taking up arms and forming the militia for a common cause is necessary - whatever local governments those free citizens recognize or create will be responsible for choosing militia officers from among the numbers of the militia.  In other words, these officers are to be chosen from among the free citizens at the time that the militia is formed, not chosen by the federal or even state governments as part of a formal military organization beforehand.

 

I am not a Constitutional lawyer but this is a case where I believe it is clear that such lawyers only confuse a very clear, unambiguous issue.  Instead, this seems to be a case where a simple understanding of the English language and the ability to read the definitions of certain terms as defined by the very people who wrote the Bill of Rights in the first place is all that is necessary to understand that the Second Amendment grants an individual right and that, as its main issue isn't hunting or even personal defense but actually defense against a tyrannical Federal government with a standing military, the individual ownership of 'military type' weapons is protected expressly and not just incidentally.

 

In short, if SCOTUS would truly read these historical supporting texts and then enforce the true spirit (as well as letter) of the law rather than allowing those opposed to individual liberty to put forward disingenuous meanings of the terms therein then the term 'well-regulated militia' would not only be unusable by their side but would, in fact, possibly be the most damning argument against their misinterpretation of the Second Amendment as this term, as used by the Founders, clearly stands opposite to the type of established, formal military organizations to which the enemies of liberty like to claim the term refers.  Unfortunately, as such an interpretation will - as the Founders intended - limit the scope of power of the federal government and as SCOTUS is a part of the federal government (which in this day and age of corruption and abuse of power is unfortunately kind of like allowing the fox to 'regulate' the henhouse) such an honest, straightforward and accurate interpretation of the Second Amendment likely isn't forthcoming any time soon.

Edited January 6, 2016 by JAB

[monkeylizard]

There is no part of 'A well regulated Militia' that is unclear as 'militia' means the whole of the people - every able bodied citizen who is able to use a weapon. 

 

That's a good definition of "Militia". Now define "well regulated". We have all 3 words to contend with in the 2nd A.

[LagerHead]

That's a good definition of "Militia". Now define "well regulated". We have all 3 words to contend with in the 2nd A.

 

Well trained. That's what the term "regulated" meant when the Constitution was written. That's why they called the standing army "regulars," because they were the trained military fighting force.

[JAB]

That's a good definition of "Militia". Now define "well regulated". We have all 3 words to contend with in the 2nd A.

 

I think I already did.  Again, see the Madison quote above.  Specifically:

 

 

 

But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia,

 

So, there is 'regulation' not by pre-existing officers in a formal military body maintained by an existing federal (or even state) government but by officers appointed from within the militia, itself by whatever local government the militia chooses.  In other words, these officers would be appointed from among the private citizens comprising the citizens' militia and would be private citizens, themselves, not necessarily previously appointed, established officers in any kind of existing, formal military body.  So the actions of the militia would be regulated by governments chosen by the militia via officers appointed from among the private citizens of the militia.  Again, I fail to see how that could in any way be construed as vague and certainly not as requiring membership in an existing, formal military organization in order to exercise an individual, Constitutionally protected right.

Edited January 7, 2016 by JAB