Other State Some Legislators are trying to help

[BigDog67]

Just saw this on Yahoo a moment ago.
S. Carolina senator suggests everyone be made militia member (yahoo.com)

Read More

 

[Capn Jack]

Some people get it right.

 

[Prefontaine]

Interesting notion, but a key component of the amendment is that it shall be "well regulated". How would that requirement be satisfied?

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

Interesting notion, but a key component of the amendment is that it shall be "well regulated". How would that requirement be satisfied?

Exactly. That's the problematic phrase in the original amendment. While many agree that to write down a list of unalienable rights, only to say that it must be regulated is oxymoronic, others disregard this logic and hone in on the word itself.

 

[Ginocide]

Redundant, every able bodied male 17-45 is already part of the militia of the United States. 10 USC § 246.

 

[CRBMoA]

Redundant, every able bodied male 17-45 is already part of the militia of the United States. 10 USC § 246.

These folks couldn't find The Constitution if they were sitting on it.

Besides, haven't you heard, there's a racist pandemic of global warming privilege going on so the rules no longer apply.

 

[Prefontaine]

Redundant, every able bodied male 17-45 is already part of the militia of the United States. 10 USC § 246.

Ah, but that doesn't satisfy the requirement. Not only is that USC section speak only to a national , not state militia, but it differentiates between the national guard and the militia volunteers for the defense of the nation. It doesn't speak to how an individual state would regulate (well) their own militia in defense of their state. Would the assumption be that however a state regulates ownership of firearms within their borders be an exercise of necessity to the security of a free state. Or, is the language of the 2A to mean the free state of the union (national) to regulate said militia?

 

[WillametteWill]

Many have noted that "Well Regulated" in the historic language of the time would be closer to "well functioning" in current terms. Having just left the crown behind, why would the founders ever want citizens to be "regulated" (in today's terms) knowing that the point of 2A is to fight off tyranny if needed. This bit of critical thinking is lost on jurists and politicians that lean in a certain direction.

 

[Soli]

I always go to this (on Constitution.org) whenever "well regulated" comes up:


The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[P7M13]

It referred to the property of something being in proper working order.

This. Which means, trained and orderly.

 

[edzz]

I wonder if something could be introduced where persons of a state who posses a CCW / CCP in which state requires training could be looked upon / classified as members of a state militia.

 

[CRBMoA]

I wonder if something could be introduced where persons of a state who posses a CCW / CCP in which state requires training could be looked upon / classified as members of a state militia.

Not too sure I would WANT to be considered part of Oregon's Militia.

 

[edzz]

Not too sure I would WANT to be considered part of Oregon's Militia.

Understandable, however I would be viewing this as a resident of Idaho, different perspective I guess.