What does the "well regulated" portion of the 2nd amendment mean?

[BushOut06]

Seems that in almost every discussion of the 2nd amendment, gun enthusiasts focus squarely on the the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed part, but skip completely over the well regulated militia part. Back when the Founding Fathers were drafting the Constitution, the general population was considered to be the militia, as there was no standing army. But even allowing for the sake of argument that the 2nd amendment allows ordinary citizens to keep firearms, there is still that well regulated phrase.

As much as I would like to see an entirely gun-free society, even I have to realize that this probably isn't ever going to happen. But we can definitely do a much better job of making these killing weapons much harder to acquire.

[Warpy]

1. It means the USSC has never overturned any

law restricting gun sales to law abiding adults. It means the gunloons who think every psychotic, felon and child deserves a gun feel persecuted.

It means deadly weapons can and should be regulated.

[Bandit]

19. But God loves guns

America is a Christian nation and that means we worship our implements of death...

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Seems to me they skip the definition of "the people"

more than anything. The Constitution preamble is:
"The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"The people" is collective. The 2nd says 'right of the people'; nowhere in that amendment does it say 'right of the individuals'. :shrug:

[rinsd]

13. Some states assert on individual right but the Constitution seems a bit more murky

Isn't it strange that every right enumerated up to the 9th is basically an individual one?

Even freedom to peaceably assemble is both and individual and collective right.

[-..__...]

15. I guess the following rights are "collective" as well...

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Xenotime]

27. agreed.

[whoneedstickets]

3. My reading is that training and registration should be cumpulsory.

Gun enthusiasts often point out that the militia is the entire able-bodied and arm citizenry. If such is the case then the well-regulated portion of this would require mandatory training and registration of armed citizens to be called up in an emergency. If you don't want to be called up, and don't want register, then your refusal to accept your responsibility should invalidate your right to bear arms. To be effective any registration system would require regular updating and the best model for this is some kind of annual license for gun ownership with periodic competency verification session and the like. One should have to demonstrate both mental stability, lack of a violent criminal record to be eligible for a license.

[billbuckhead]

4. They wanted the miltia to be up the job of replacing a standing army

What they really wanted was the lack of a standing army. From wikipedia.

"The Second Amendment itself was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20.<18> These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24 the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

On September 4, the Senate voted to change significantly the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence", next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated.<19> The Senate then slightly modified the language, and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21 to accept the changes made by the Senate, however the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

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.<20>

This version was transmitted to the states for ratification.

Historical sources"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>

[Xenotime]

5. "well regulated" means a korean on a student visa...aparently

[Jim__]

6. Federalist Paper #29 talks about a well-regulated militia.

Federalist 29

An excerpt:

... The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."


... By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

I think this is open to interpretation.

[elocs]

7. You won't see a gun enthusiast ever quote the "well regulated milita" part of the 2nd Amendment.

I have rarely even seen them have the ability to quote the ENTIRE amendment. They conveniently only like to quote the part they like, otherwise it requires too much thinking.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Self delete

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. Historically,

all able-bodied men were required in colonial times to be a part in the militia. But even then, there were exemptions--one very elderly man was exempted from service during King Phillip's War (he died at age 106 in the 1680s). Since he was a direct ancestor of mine, I've done research on him and I can tell you that the inventory of his estate did not include ANY weapons. Having looked at the town records in New England during King Phillip's War, I can also say that guns and ammunitions at that time were distributed and assigned to different households so that all the munitions would not be in one place. I think the notion of a "well regulated militia" during colonial times was far different than many think.

[librechik]

10. Oh that's nothing. Move along citizen. And be sure to take your mandatory firearm

That's how we will solve all this random violence. If guys know they will certainly be shot dead by the little old LadySmith and Wesson they rob, they will think twice about doing it, fer shur. At least that's what I'm told.

[leftofthedial]

11. nothing

anymore

[Sapere aude]

12. Where does it say that all our rights have to be enumerated in the Constitution?

Rights don't descend from the government. The second amendment restricts the government not the people.

[valerief]

14. 2nd amendment, huh! As Bush would say, it's just a piece of paper. nt

[ThomWV]

16. The history on it is pretty clear

The meaning was this, the militia (roughly equal to each state's National Guard but directly under the control of a single man in each state - the Governor) was to be well regulated by an armed populace which could (and presumably would) overpower the militia were it to become the tool of a tyrannical Governor. What is why the founder's thought that the citizens right to be armed should never to taken away - so that they could take back their own Government from out of control powers. Remember, back in those days the Government was no better armed than the citizenry.

[LiberalFighter]

17. It refers to the current day National Guards that each state has.

[wryter2000]

18. From US v. Miller

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
...
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174

Militias were organized by the states, as opposed to having a standing army, which was not favored by the Founders. Members were expected to furnish their own guns, so banning guns on the federal level would interfere with this state power.

[moondust]

20. Did the Founding Fathers

really grant the constitutionally protected right for every drunken sailor stumbling out of the local tavern to keep and bear "arms"--without definition--which could easily be construed to mean anything up to and including artillery pieces and whatever else might be invented in the future?

I doubt it.

[jmg257]

24. No - they didn't grant anything, just recognized and protected the pre-existing right.

[moondust]

28. What are you smoking? n/t

[jmg257]

29. Not a thing, thanks, just answering your question. nt

[jmg257]

21. "to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions,"

"the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia"

Alexander Haimilton Federalist #29
1788

Note: written BEFORE the 2nd amendment - pretty clear this is what was standard practice for the people & the Militia of the several States, and what Madison had in mind.

[Jim__]

32. ... would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

The whole sentence from Federalist 29:

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

[cgrindley]

22. In CT it means

background check, criminal record check, 3 letters of reference, bills and/or tax returns establishing 1 year residency in the CT town in which you are applying, finger prints and a variety of other forms, driver's licence, not to mention recent NRA certification... to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights.

Ordinary citizens should be encouraged to carry arms. Ordinary citizens are not the problem.

[whoneedstickets]

25. Ordinary citizen B.S.

What was extraordinary about this guy before he opened fire? How about that guy in Ohio who killed those Amish girls. Implied in this BS is a notion that we can easily distinguish between those who will never use their guns in a violent act and those who will at the time of purchase.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Unfortunately, the difference between ordinary citizens and many of

the others is just one really bad day.

[ThomWV]

30. They Jack You Around Here In West Virginia Too

It took me over two months to get my concealed carry permit even though the law requires that each county's Sheriff either approve or deny the permit (how's that for a word?) within 45 days.

[jmg257]

23. The declatory clause about the requirement of the State Militias should NOT be left off

from the restrictive clause, as it articulates one of the primary reasons for Americans to be well-armed and well-trained, and to justify the type of arms agreed to by the USSC as appropriate - i.e. "military equipment in common use".

[Zynx]

31. Regulated means "drilled" or "practiced" in the language of the time.