What part of "well-regulated militia" do they not understand?

[pnwmom]

Whatever they meant by "militia," the writers of the Constitution never said we couldn't pass regulations concerning guns.

[GP6971]

1. Obviously, all parts of it

The NRA conveniently leaves off that part.

[elleng]

2. any of it, but neither did the Supremes.

[mcar]

13. IIRC, the Supremes did until recent decades

Most 2A cases prior this insanity was based on the "well regulated militia" part. I think Scalia's term brought about the individual liberty stuff.

[elleng]

16. Not definitive SUPREME cases, tho, eh?

https://www.thoughtco.com/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-721399

In Heller, they were finally 'ready' to address the 'well-regulated' issue, and decided to ignore it.

'The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … .”

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939) , we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades … and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).

Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).'>>>

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

[grumpyduck]

3. I've talked about this with several people

and find it interesting that "militia" -- what a militia was back then and why it was needed -- doesn't mean anything to them.

Of course, trying to explain "militia" in terms of American history just keeps them coming right back to the 2A.

But, on the other hand, and 'fessing up, I didn't pay all that close attention to that part of history class either. It wan't until many years later that it all became interesting.

[AncientGeezer]

4. Actually SCOTUS decided that..."well-regulated militia"

The Court held that the first clause of the 2A that referring to a militia is a prefatory clause that does Not limit the Operative Clause of the Amend....the right of the people...

You are right though...regulations are Constitutional.

[hack89]

5. What part of Heller don't you understand

The 2A allows strict regulation of guns. AWBs, registration, etc are all perfectly legal.

[pnwmom]

12. There's no reason guns can't be regulated to ban certain variations. The assault weapons

of today have no relationship to anything the Founders imagined.

[hack89]

14. There is no legal obstacle to doing exactly that

The impediments are political and cultural. The public is simply not unified on the question of gun control.

[EX500rider]

6. If the 1st Amendment was written like this:

"In order to guarantee a free press, the rights of the people to free speech shall not be infringed"

Do you think that would only allow the Press free speech or the people?

[aikoaiko]

7. Whether they did or didn't want federal regs passed on arms, most of us recognize we need them

I read the 2nd Amendment simply.

The founders wanted to protect the people's right to keep and bear arms so that a militia could always be formed. Forming a militia to ensure the security of a free State was in the interest of the federal government.

[guillaumeb]

10. The Founders did not provide for a standing army.

So if we are truly originalists, the armed forces, with the exception of the Navy, should be disbanded.

[Igel]

17. They didn't provide for one.

Neither, however, did they bar one.

In many ways, the power of the federal government are enumerated. In other areas, not so much.

[sl8]

8. From one of the DC v. Heller amicus briefs

This is from an amicus brief submitted by professors of linguistics and English, in support of the petitioners (District of Columbia).

It's easier to read from the original, this excerpt isn't formatted as well and is missing the footnotes:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_linguists1.pdf

...

A. Because a Well Regulated Militia Is
Necessary . . . .

The phrase “well regulated Militia” is overtly military. It is preceded in the Constitution by the commander-in-chief clause of Article II, which places “the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” under the President’s command, and by the Militia Clauses of Article I, which grant Congress the power to “provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States,” and for “calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1; art. I, § 8, cls. 15, 16.

The difference between the militia referenced in the original Constitution and the militia referenced in the Amendment is the participial adjective “well regulated.” The use of the past participle “regulated” in that modifier suggests a militia that not only is “subject to” regulation under the militia laws, but also is in possession of the qualities that flow from participation in regular military exercises—orderliness, discipline, proficiency with arms, knowledge about maneuvers and so on. By contrast, “the militia” alone, without the “well regulated” modifier, appears to denote the military forces described in the Militia Clauses of Article I, Section 8, which are subject to regulation by Congress and the states.

Considering how the modifier was used at the time, its appearance in the Second Amendment looks to have been intentionally meaningful, as a “well regulated” militia was said to have attributes clearly differentiated from and clearly superior to those of a militia that was said not to be well regulated.

Alexander Hamilton, for example, spoke of “the degree of perfection” through regular “military exercises” that militia members had to achieve before they could earn “the character of a well regulated militia.” See The Federalist No. 29 184 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961). The language of the Amendment, therefore, tells us that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was protected not merely to safeguard the militia, but to safeguard a well regulated militia.

The court of appeals read the phrase “well regulated Militia” to mean citizens who were armed and “subject to organization by the states (as distinct from actually organized).” Parker, 478 F.3d at 389. It did so, it said, because “the existence of the militia preceded its organization by Congress” in the Second Militia Act in 1792, and because its existence preceded the states’ implementation of Congress’s organizing plan in that Act. Id. at 388-89 (citing Act of May 8, 1792, ch. XXXIII, 1 Stat. 271 (“Second Militia Act”)).

Given the usage of the day, however, the court’s conclusion appears not to follow. If the intent had been to refer merely to citizens subject to organization, as the court posited, then one would expect the drafters to have employed other language, such as “a regulable militia.”12 Without regular training and discipline, the militias were not regarded as “well regulated”:

You’l hear of the Dunmore Militia’s behaviour when Order’d to Camp. Pray do not suffer them to Escape Reprehension, or their Example may be fatal to our Militia. They say they could not be provided on the Road. I enquir’d at Frederick town as I came down and their pretence is without any kind of foundation. A well Regulated Militia may be our Salvation and Officers who are not Attentive to their duty ought to be broke like Glass and certain I am the Dunmore Field Officers were not, two of whom are Delegates for that County.

Letter from John Harvie to Thomas Jefferson (October 18, 1777) in 8 Letters of Delegates to Congress, Sept. 19, 1777-Jan. 31, 1778, at 140 (Paul H. Smith et al. eds., 1976-2000) (emphasis added).13 At the time, Virginia had in place a law subjecting militia members to organization. See An Act of Regulating and Disciplining the Militia (May 5, 1777), Va. Stat. at Large, 9 Hening 267-68 (1821); see also An Ordinance for Raising and Embodying a Sufficient Force, for the Defence and Protection of this Colony (July 17, 1775), Va. Stat. at Large, 9 Hening 10 (1821).14 Interpreting the phrase “a well regulated Militia” to refer to citizens who were merely enrolled in a militia and therefore “subject to organization by the states (as distinct from actually organized)” is inconsistent with the usage of the period.

...

[guillaumeb]

9. Scalia dismissed it as merely prefatory.

And ironically enough, also claimed to be an originalist.

[hack89]

15. He also said the 2A allows strict regulation of guns. Nt

[krispos42]

11. Maybe the part where it says "the people"?

And there are a LOT of gun regulations already in existence!

The ATF keeps a list of all the gun laws in all 50 states. Knock yourself out:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/state-laws-and-published-ordinances-firearms-32nd-edition



And here's a PDF of all federal gun laws. 237 pages.
https://www.atf.gov/file/11241/download

[samir.g]

18. Why do we even give a fuck at this point?

The world is a totally different place now, and guns are not necessary.

Whatever the founders wrote is no longer relevant.

[pnwmom]

20. Because our system of laws is based on the Constitution as interpreted by the Courts. nt

[Kablooie]

19. 'Well regulated' is defined as meaning every person in the US to be armed.

[nitpicker]

21. In the early United States

Out on the frontiers of settlement, men were listed on census records as belonging to "Capt Davis' company", "Capt Penny's company", etc. Their tax records were also grouped by company.

[BarbaRosa]

22. Every part except the word gun.