Washington Second amendment language

[baker3gun]

Bravo!! Great narrative!

But...
"The Constitution was not "delayed while the States wrestled with the Bill Of Rights".
The Constitution was ratified in 1788." Help me understand!

The Constitution was signed in 1776 and ratified in 1788! Wasn't the delay the argument about Federalist vs. Anti Federalist (Centralized Government Power Vs. States Rights) and Individual Rights like the 1A, 2A and 4A?

Smiles,

The Philadelphia Convention ended with the Constitution being signed in Sept 1787. Then sent to states.

ETA - the Bill of Rights was created in summer 1789, approved Sept of same year, then sent to states.

ETA2 - I should strive for better clarity:

In both cases, the Constitution and the first Amendments, were constitutional documents created by and then approved by recognized national bodies, and then submitted to States for representative ratification.

[cheers]

 

[GWS]

In the context of the second amendment, regulated means equipped and maintained.

So if we were to Wright the second amendment in a more modern language it would be more along....

A well equipped group of organized and trained fighting citizens, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

At least this is what I've read... I haven't dived any deeper than that and am in no way a historian.

The heck with that
I want NO qualifiers in the Second Amendment
It should simply say
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

End of story
Mic drop

 

[bivy53]

In the context of the second amendment, regulated means equipped and maintained.

So if we were to Wright the second amendment in a more modern language it would be more along....

A well equipped group of organized and trained fighting citizens, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

At least this is what I've read... I haven't dived any deeper than that and am in no way a historian.

This

All correct but the 2nd is a limitation on the actions of the Government not something that gives the public anything.

And this
The BOR is a list of the things that the government cannot touch.
And yet ...

 

[baker3gun]

In the context of the 2nd Amendment, the word regulated doesn't mean anything at all. It's window dressing. The prefatory clause is irrelevant.

The "historical evidence of intent" argument is the only argument that can always be won.
The rest are just easy diversions. People like easy stuff, so the easy stuff never goes away because people like it but no one can win it.

It's like the "in common use" test. People love that test even though it is fatally flawed.

Example - The weapon of the future is the X10 Mark V goober rifle. You will never be able to own one because you hung your hat on "in common use" and the goober rifle won't be invented for another 60 years, so it will never be in common civilian use, so you can just stick with the only guns that we know were in common use back when the "in common use" doctrine was adopted by you.

The better doctrine is "fighting arms".
That 2A protects the right to fighting arms, because the issue at hand was never deer, it was always prevention of tyranny, and no part of the Constitution relegates the people to lesser technology or power or capabilities or gear than the gov.

A problem is that you cannot fit the "historical evidence of intent" or the "fighting arms" arguments into a tweet, so they gain fewer adherents.

Which leaves us in the position of literally arguing literally at the scotus level about "in common use", or "militia",

when the real argument we should be having is "the rkb fighting arms shall not be infringed."

We flounder instead of fly.

 

[jjfitch]

For those wanting a thorough study of the origins of the 2A!
This supports Baker3guns terrific narrative as well!

Cheer,

 

[mrblond]

i cant see what the confusion is all about.. right to bear arms is very clear.

 

[jjfitch]

i cant see what the confusion is all about.. right to bear arms is very clear.

View attachment 777070

It is confusing....he's pointing to his left!

 

[bbbass]

We see the concept of "regulated" in language used by the military even today ... albeit it not as frequently today as since the Korean War era.

Have you ever heard a phrase like "He's REGULAR Army."? The term regular (stemming from the archaic use of regulated) referred to active duty personnel delineating them from the reserve components. Regular army meant he was serving, wearing the uniform, and was GI (government issue) in his equipment.

Prior to the WWII / Korean Conflict eras the reserves were haphazardly equipped (if at all) because the expectation was that when activated these persons would be augmented into active units and these units would provide the necessary equipment to support the role of the new augmentee. Reserve units, with few exceptions, did not act as or train as stand alone units, they were more viewed as a "pool" of manpower from which to draw from and disseminate to the units that were already operational.

Of course today our reserve components are able to mobilize and function as there own stand alone units, but that is a modern organizational model.

Also,

Looking back in history you will find militia units that were "irregular" units. The irregular's were militia that basically showed up with whatever they had regarding clothing, firearms and perhaps maybe a horse for transportation. They were not afforded the common arms and stipends that some local governmental units provided (as discussed earlier). They were no less brave, or instrumental in bringing the fight to the enemy, they just did so at a disadvantage since they lacked equipment commonality.

It was the disadvantage stemming from a lack of equipment commonality that the Founding Fathers recognized and why they included the "well regulated" language in the 2nd. It was to encourage the private ownership of the then common military pattern firearms, to better equip those who may be called upon to protect our country or to fight tyranny that could possibly rise up in the future.

The meaning of the 2A, and it's value to the common good, is no different today as then. The vast and broad ownership of AR pattern firearms we see today continues to support the common good, stabilizes society which strengthens our culture, and reduces violent crime and sociopathic antics that will undoubtedly increase in frequency if this type of firearm ownership is curtailed in the future.

Discussion of "Regular" and "Irregular" units re the 2A lends credence to the antis argument that 2A rights only pertain to the states ability to have National Guard type reserve units. (Not saying that is your stated position, only that we don't need to go there as it encourages the wrong discussion.)

IMO that argument is WAY out of line and a PITA dodge in that it totally ignores the FACT that the BOR affirms individual God-given, or natural rights if you prefer, as confirmed by SCOTUS (as if that means anything), and limits govt rather than giving state govts permission to have troops.

IMO that's as silly and flawed an argument as that which says the 2A means we are "allowed" to have hunting rifles.

 

[DLS]

I hear you except that the definition of milita prior to the 1960s was that body of able bodied men between a certain age range (this changed from time to time) that were not already a member of the constablary, military or any of their auxiliaries (either state or federal). There was no National Guard at the time, and even with the modern Guard we now have, they are not part of the militia by definition.

I also agree with the folks who are stating it's the last operational clause that matters, but it pays to be able to answer the antis arguments.

Just my take!

 

[baker3gun]

IMO - if you start with the "historical evidence" argument pertaining to the operative clause, you will win that argument because it cannot be rationally or logically defeated.

After that argument is won, it is established that there is no way the authors or ratifiers intended or created any restriction on the citizen right to arms.

Next step: the prefatory clause.

whoops.

How does one claim that the prefatory clause established a militia restriction on the rkba when it was just established that the authors and ratifiers neither intended nor created any restriction on the rkba?

That's it.

 

[jjfitch]

IMO - if you start with the "historical evidence" argument pertaining to the operative clause, you will win that argument because it cannot be rationally or logically defeated.

After that argument is won, it is established that there is no way the authors or ratifiers intended or created any restriction on the citizen right to arms.

Next step: the prefatory clause.

whoops.

How does one claim that the prefatory clause established a militia restriction on the rkba when it was just established that the authors and ratifiers neither intended nor created any restriction on the rkba?

That's it.

In Halbrook's book referred to in Post #25 he makes it very clear, there isn't!

 

[Ura-Ki]

Don't forget, the Formation of, and maintenance of the Militia was VERY important when the BoR was written, as was the very real fear ( which was proved true later) of standing armies. so the founders were quite specific in their intents and included it in the 2nd! As we know from history, the regular army/ navy was quite small, and recruiting and maintaining garrison was not only difficult, but also expensive, so having stand by regulars, both trained Militia, and civilian Militia made perfect sense! Still does today if you were to really look at it critically with an eye toward doing a lot of what the Military does that could be done better and cheaper by Militia and or Civilian personal! Anyway, back on point, The threat of standing armies was also a very real and concerning issue, and was not properly regulated( restricted) or enforced, which led to some of the greatest crimes committed against a people in this countries history, I'm specifically calling out the Rail Roads and Banking industries, and still later, the Iron and steel companies, and even Ford Motors! All of those "Companies" hired on armed "Agents" in large numbers and they went around killing folks who refused to sell or move or what ever was demanded of them, often using the "Right Of Imminent Domain" when it was not! At one time, there were over 30,000 armed "Agents" working across the lands harassing, imprisoning's, killing, or making life miserable for good innocent folks! When challenged, they always had the "Official" backing of some politician who ether worked for, or was beholden to one of those companies,, and the Rail Roads were the worst by far! Those folks became the Standing Army our founders feared, and the nation did nothing to stop, and in fact, supported them! This continued right up through the 1920's and the murder of auto workers outside the front gates of Ford Motor Company, By Henry Ford Sr. hisself, and yet, even then, nothing was done to redress what had been done, and Ford was never arrested or held accountable for what he did! THIS is why we have the language as it is!
Our Founders also believed ( Rightly) that those most important of all, 4 simple words, would settle any and all challenges to the 2nd, but they were wrong! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! It says exactly what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say! Shall Not Be Infringed, sure has had a awful lot of infringing on it since then! Starting with local towns with some form of "Law Man" restricting a citizens right to carry his firearms in town, often ether having to check them in for safe keeping, or, arrest and arms seized until time served and fine paid! This expanded to larger towns and cities, and eventually, even states, we got to where we are today! Forcing one to have a carry permit to lawfully carry a firearm is another infringement!

 

[jjfitch]

Don't forget, the Formation of, and maintenance of the Militia was VERY important when the BoR was written, as was the very real fear ( which was proved true later) of standing armies. so the founders were quite specific in their intents and included it in the 2nd! As we know from history, the regular army/ navy was quite small, and recruiting and maintaining garrison was not only difficult, but also expensive, so having stand by regulars, both trained Militia, and civilian Militia made perfect sense! Still does today if you were to really look at it critically with an eye toward doing a lot of what the Military does that could be done better and cheaper by Militia and or Civilian personal! Anyway, back on point, The threat of standing armies was also a very real and concerning issue, and was not properly regulated( restricted) or enforced, which led to some of the greatest crimes committed against a people in this countries history, I'm specifically calling out the Rail Roads and Banking industries, and still later, the Iron and steel companies, and even Ford Motors! All of those "Companies" hired on armed "Agents" in large numbers and they went around killing folks who refused to sell or move or what ever was demanded of them, often using the "Right Of Imminent Domain" when it was not! At one time, there were over 30,000 armed "Agents" working across the lands harassing, imprisoning's, killing, or making life miserable for good innocent folks! When challenged, they always had the "Official" backing of some politician who ether worked for, or was beholden to one of those companies,, and the Rail Roads were the worst by far! Those folks became the Standing Army our founders feared, and the nation did nothing to stop, and in fact, supported them! This continued right up through the 1920's and the murder of auto workers outside the front gates of Ford Motor Company, By Henry Ford Sr. hisself, and yet, even then, nothing was done to redress what had been done, and Ford was never arrested or held accountable for what he did! THIS is why we have the language as it is!
Our Founders also believed ( Rightly) that those most important of all, 4 simple words, would settle any and all challenges to the 2nd, but they were wrong! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! It says exactly what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say! Shall Not Be Infringed, sure has had a awful lot of infringing on it since then! Starting with local towns with some form of "Law Man" restricting a citizens right to carry his firearms in town, often ether having to check them in for safe keeping, or, arrest and arms seized until time served and fine paid! This expanded to larger towns and cities, and eventually, even states, we got to where we are today! Forcing one to have a carry permit to lawfully carry a firearm is another infringement!

"Regulated' meant well trained and equipped. "Regular" or "Regulars" referred to those citizens referred to in the above posts that volunteered and were "well trained and equipped" think "Minutemen"! These terms are not interchangeable with "restricted"! in terms of the intent and purpose of the 2A and its origins!

Don't confuse the "Regulars" with G'W's Continental Army. This was the first "standing army" in the Colonies but was never intended to be permanent . There wasn't enough money to feed or equip an army until France joined the fight against England.

"Standing army" depended on whether you were a Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian!

Smiles,

 

[baker3gun]

Devil's advocate:

You say the founders specifically wrote 2A to accommodate a federal power to form and maintain the militia? If so, the federal government is empowered to form or not form the militia, and if it chooses to not form the militia, then the right of the people to kba would be unnecessary.

Such is the hazard of vulnerable arguments.

> The federal govt never had a power to form or maintain a militia, and never exercised that power. The federal govt only had the power to specify equipment standards for state militias, call state militias, and assume command of them for limited periods of time.

> From 1784 - 1789, the national regular army and navy was not small, it was zero. It did not exist. The Constitution was not written to improve some undefined peacetime military capability, it was written to create one.

> Presuming that no "federal" govt existed prior to 1788, 1789 1st Congress marked the first federal attempt to assemble any form of national military. For the first decade or so, the lingering fear of "standing army" led Congress to limit the amount of money budgeted for national military capability, and more importantly, the term of service covered by the budget.
No federal or state law was considered to "regulate the threat of a standing army."

> None of the entities you called out were the federal govt, therefore no armed force used by those entities was a standing army. More like a gang of thugs. If a company pays politicians or law enforcement to look the other way, that does not make the company's criminals a standing army.

> Agreed, a number of broad infringements have occurred over the last 100 years.

Weapons technology advanced.
Lawmakers and the Court are in agreement - 2A does not protect an individual citizen's right to keep and bear nuclear weapons or nerve gas. The Court cannot be corrected on these specific issues because the Court is not wrong.

Irrefutably then, there is such a thing as an acceptable infringement.

The real contest is where to draw the line.

If the left has their way, we'll be beaten back to muzzleloaders.

SCOTUS is not immune to public opinion.
SCOTUS needs to hear loud and clear instructions from the people, but the only people who seems willing to unite and raise a collective voice are the leftists who pursue disarmament as a precursor to oppression.

We need to find common ground and unite and raise a collective voice.

In order to unite a large number of people, you need valid arguments and a politically viable position.

That's actually my interest in threads like this one. To engage in conversation and get people to think about arguments that work vs. arguments that fall apart.

Cheers!

 

[baker3gun]

Don't confuse the "Regulars" with G'W's Continental Army.

Regulars referred to British Regulars (soldiers) or Continentals (soldiers).

Regulars did not refer to militia men.

Not sure where you're going with the rest.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Devil's advocate:

You say the founders specifically wrote 2A to accommodate a federal power to form and maintain the militia? If so, the federal government is empowered to form or not form the militia, and if it chooses to not form the militia, then the right of the people to kba would be unnecessary.

Such is the hazard of vulnerable arguments.

> The federal govt never had a power to form or maintain a militia, and never exercised that power. The federal govt only had the power to specify equipment standards for state militias, call state militias, and assume command of them for limited periods of time.

> From 1784 - 1789, the national regular army and navy was not small, it was zero. It did not exist. The Constitution was not written to improve some undefined peacetime military capability, it was written to create one.

> Presuming that no "federal" govt existed prior to 1788, 1789 1st Congress marked the first federal attempt to assemble any form of national military. For the first decade or so, the lingering fear of "standing army" led Congress to limit the amount of money budgeted for national military capability, and more importantly, the term of service covered by the budget.
No federal or state law was considered to "regulate the threat of a standing army."

> None of the entities you called out were the federal govt, therefore no armed force used by those entities was a standing army. More like a gang of thugs. If a company pays politicians or law enforcement to look the other way, that does not make the company's criminals a standing army.

> Agreed, a number of broad infringements have occurred over the last 100 years.

Weapons technology advanced.
Lawmakers and the Court are in agreement - 2A does not protect an individual citizen's right to keep and bear nuclear weapons or nerve gas. The Court cannot be corrected on these specific issues because the Court is not wrong.

Irrefutably then, there is such a thing as an acceptable infringement.

The real contest is where to draw the line.

If the left has their way, we'll be beaten back to muzzleloaders.

SCOTUS is not immune to public opinion.
SCOTUS needs to hear loud and clear instructions from the people, but the only people who seems willing to unite and raise a collective voice are the leftists who pursue disarmament as a precursor to oppression.

We need to find common ground and unite and raise a collective voice.

In order to unite a large number of people, you need valid arguments and a politically viable position.

That's actually my interest in threads like this one. To engage in conversation and get people to think about arguments that work vs. arguments that fall apart.

Cheers!

Then, as each state signed on, and affirmed it's aliegence to the nation, and further, as each state also drafted it's BoR, they gained the rights to form and maintain a militia!

 

[Alexx1401]

It has long been a moot point. Gun owners LONG ago told law makers 2A was not a "right", it is a privilege. One to be doled out as law makers see fit. Once they opened that box it will never be closed now.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Devil's advocate:

You say the founders specifically wrote 2A to accommodate a federal power to form and maintain the militia? If so, the federal government is empowered to form or not form the militia, and if it chooses to not form the militia, then the right of the people to kba would be unnecessary.

Such is the hazard of vulnerable arguments.

> The federal govt never had a power to form or maintain a militia, and never exercised that power. The federal govt only had the power to specify equipment standards for state militias, call state militias, and assume command of them for limited periods of time.

> From 1784 - 1789, the national regular army and navy was not small, it was zero. It did not exist. The Constitution was not written to improve some undefined peacetime military capability, it was written to create one.

> Presuming that no "federal" govt existed prior to 1788, 1789 1st Congress marked the first federal attempt to assemble any form of national military. For the first decade or so, the lingering fear of "standing army" led Congress to limit the amount of money budgeted for national military capability, and more importantly, the term of service covered by the budget.
No federal or state law was considered to "regulate the threat of a standing army."

> None of the entities you called out were the federal govt, therefore no armed force used by those entities was a standing army. More like a gang of thugs. If a company pays politicians or law enforcement to look the other way, that does not make the company's criminals a standing army.

> Agreed, a number of broad infringements have occurred over the last 100 years.

Weapons technology advanced.
Lawmakers and the Court are in agreement - 2A does not protect an individual citizen's right to keep and bear nuclear weapons or nerve gas. The Court cannot be corrected on these specific issues because the Court is not wrong.

Irrefutably then, there is such a thing as an acceptable infringement.

The real contest is where to draw the line.

If the left has their way, we'll be beaten back to muzzleloaders.

SCOTUS is not immune to public opinion.
SCOTUS needs to hear loud and clear instructions from the people, but the only people who seems willing to unite and raise a collective voice are the leftists who pursue disarmament as a precursor to oppression.

We need to find common ground and unite and raise a collective voice.

In order to unite a large number of people, you need valid arguments and a politically viable position.

That's actually my interest in threads like this one. To engage in conversation and get people to think about arguments that work vs. arguments that fall apart.

Cheers!

Yes, and no!
You explained it better, but what I was referring to was: Regulars, as in Trained Militia, Active vs Untrained civilian! The use of terms did in fact interchange between regular Military and Militia, we know this as whenever Militia were called up, their commander retained his command authority, and would integrate his command within his assigned regiment or what ever duty assignment was handed him! His troupes were still listed separately as Regular Militia, as apposed to Regular Army, and those men were called "Regulars"

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Being a student of firearms, I take regulated to mean a fire arms sights have been aligned with the barrel to a specific point of aim corresponding with the point of impact. It is a term applied to more recently to double rifles and shotguns, but could be applied to single barrel rifles and shotguns as well. Given the language and usage of the time "militia" was a term applied to THINGS of a military nature. What we think of as militia were actually termed volunteers at that time.

Just putting this out there to either be supported, debunked or expanded upon

There's a good analysis of the Heller decision here:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

District of Columbia v. Heller: Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

supreme.justia.com

Scalia makes it clear that the 2nd Amendment does not turn on whether there are militias or not, or whether gun owners are members thereof.

If you read the Federalist Papers, written by the founders as they pushed for ratification of the constitution, it is clear that the meaning of the term "well regulated" was at that time referring to training which produced clock-like precision in the use of arms in ranks, as was the custom in warfare at the time. There was even a brand of clocks that were called "regulators". Be that as it may, Justice Scalia in the majority opinion in the Heller case completely divorces any mention of a "well regulated militia" from the imperative statement, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The prefatory clause could as well have been written, "The moon being made of green cheese", and it would not change the meaning of the operative clause, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[bbbass]

I hear you except that the definition of milita prior to the 1960s was that body of able bodied men between a certain age range (this changed from time to time) that were not already a member of the constablary, military or any of their auxiliaries (either state or federal).

The only definition of "militia" that matters is the one in common usage when the 2A was written.