Second Amendment: What is the legal definition of a well regulated militia?

[jessup270]

Pro gun folks often quote the second amendment.

They constantly quote the part "right to bear arms".

Somehow the quote "a well regulated militia" seems to be ignored.

I ask this question of both pro gun and anti gun citizens, what is the legal definition of "a well regulated militia"?

My guess is that thousands upon thousands of ordinary citizens owning arms in any state, does not fit the legal definition of a well regulated militia.

[bmore_ken]

Hasn't the SC already addressed this in the Heller and McDonald cases

[demopublican]

I think an armed public is a potential militia.

[SemiAuto]

In the original context of the 2nd Amendment a well regulated militia is one that is trained, disciplined and equipped.

[jessup270]

If Obama gets to nominate at least one and maybe two justices, it would be a good time for that newly made up Supreme Court to finally address gun ownership in the US.

While the second amendment says you a have right to bear arms, I am not so sure that a hodgepodge of individual citizens owning arms is a well regulated militia.

[Smokey 1]

My guess is that thousands upon thousands of ordinary citizens owning arms in any state, does not fit the legal definition of a well regulated militia.

It fits the definition of an armed citizenry which is what the authors of the Constitution foresaw as a deterent to tyranny. Interesting that the opponents of an armed citizenry are either extremely naive and uninformed or have an agenda that an armed citizenry would stand in the way of.

[SemiAuto]

If Obama gets to nominate at least one and maybe two justices, it would be a good time for that newly made up Supreme Court to finally address gun ownership in the US.

While the second amendment says you a have right to bear arms, I am not so sure that a hodgepodge of individual citizens owning arming arms is a well regulated militia.

In order to have a well regulated militia you'll have to have an armed populace, thus the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

The spark that lit up the Revolution was essentially gun control.

[Aclobat]

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment, it was not the intent of the framers to restrict the right to keep arms to only those serving active militia duty.

[Joy in Mudville]

The spark that lit up the Revolution was essentially gun control.

That's not even remotely true.

[Joy in Mudville]

People seem to skip over the regulated part.

A well-regulated militia back then meant citizens with muskets. It didn't mean that every house had a cannon.

Similarly, we have a well-regulated militia. It's called the national guard. There is nothing unconstitutional about requiring background checks or prohibiting individual ownership of certain types of weapons.

[flyboy56]

I see the modern day military as the government's well organized militia. But as a wing of the government we cannot expected this military to be a deterrent to a "tyrannical government."

[Jeebus]

Pro gun folks often quote the second amendment.

They constantly quote the part "right to bear arms".

Somehow the quote "a well regulated militia" seems to be ignored.

I ask this question of both pro gun and anti gun citizens, what is the legal definition of "a well regulated militia"?

Already answered your exact same question in another thread.

My guess is that thousands upon thousands of ordinary citizens owning arms in any state, does not fit the legal definition of a well regulated militia.

Your guess would be wrong.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.

[Jeebus]

Similarly, we have a well-regulated militia. It's called the national guard.

180 degrees wrong, it certainly does NOT refer to the National Guard, which, of course, is The Govt not The People.

[demopublican]

There is nothing unconstitutional about requiring background checks or prohibiting individual ownership of certain types of weapons.

I agree with that part of your post.

[SemiAuto]

People seem to skip over the regulated part.

A well-regulated militia back then meant citizens with muskets. It didn't mean that every house had a cannon.

The musket was the modern fire arm of the time.

Similarly, we have a well-regulated militia. It's called the national guard. There is nothing unconstitutional about requiring background checks or prohibiting individual ownership of certain types of weapons.

This is just simply wrong. The 2nd Amendment pre-dates the national guard by long time and they are clearly not meant to be the same thing.

As for prohibition, how does that match up with the right to keep and bear arms not being infringed?

[cprenegade]

The evidence points to a "well regulated militia" being the citizens of the country. One of the reasons the second amendment was put in believing that if the government could restrict it's citizens and possibly prevent them from being armed it could very easily become a tyrannical government.

[Joy in Mudville]

180 degrees wrong, it certainly does NOT refer to the National Guard, which, of course, is The Govt not The People.

Really?

So the high school teacher who spends one weekend a month training with MD National Guard unit is not the people?

Do you think he knows that?

[octoburn]

The evidence points to a "well regulated militia" being the citizens of the country. One of the reasons the second amendment was put in believing that if the government could restrict it's citizens and possibly prevent them from being armed it could very easily become a tyrannical government.

Without equivalency in equal firepower to that of the government, the citizens will lose every time. Things ~ including weapon technology and methods of delivery ~ have changed a great deal since the Second Amendment was written.

Does the 2A apply only to firearms that one can carry on her or his person?

If it does and is limited in that regard, then that is a limitation and infringement on one's right to bear arms because it limits the type of weaponry a citizen can possess.

I do not understand the opposition to background checks to determine if one is fit to have a weapon.

[Joy in Mudville]

The musket was the modern fire arm of the time.

By this logic I have a constitutional right to spend every afternoon sitting across from Riderwood elementary under the shade of my World War II howitzer while polishing my trusty bazooka.

[jessup270]

The evidence points to a "well regulated militia" being the citizens of the country. One of the reasons the second amendment was put in believing that if the government could restrict it's citizens and possibly prevent them from being armed it could very easily become a tyrannical government.

Why didn't the authors of the 2nd amendment just say citizens of the country as opposed to using the verbiage, well regulated militia?

Legal scholars are very precise and when words are used in a legal document, very little is left interpretation of the courts.