2nd Amendment: For the militia, or because of the militia?

[barnbwt]

Which goes back to the premise that the court did not wish to conflict with the newly-enacted NFA that had been the subject of much acrimony. Much as a much later court would be alleged to ignore certain aspects of a controversial tax plan relating to medical bills.

Pretty much this; as mentioned previously, the court was only interested in protecting FDR's flagship progressive gun control bill. Evidence, precedent, logic, and history be damned. Somehow WWI was *defined* by machineguns yet there was never any chance they'd be protected.

Miller didn't protect anything for the militia or anyone else, since it only respected arms wielded in service to the authorities (the same ones who would ostensibly be denying us whatever the 2nd amendment was supposed to be for sake of argument). "Collective rights" is a self-negating theory.

 

[grampajack]

The Militia's existence precedes the Government's arming of them in time of war. If there were no Militia, there would be no mention of arming them, the process would have to start with the Gov forming a 'Militia', then arming it.

Until there is a crisis (war, insurrection, etc) the Militia, being every able bodied Man, simply exists and is armed by itself.

'The People'' and the 'Militia' are one and the same. Sooooo..........to be clear, if you reversed the sentences in the 2nd, to our modern way of talking, .........'' the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (as/because) a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state.....'' means the same when read in proper order too....

The Militia, once inducted, become a serving branch of the US military. Our M-4's are waiting for a national crisis and for our States Governor's to call up the Militia and fill out the ranks the military needs.

I showed the example Alaska has from WWII......the Militia formed, then Congress authorized the Army to appoint officers (give commissions), train, arm and pay the good folks of AK.......who, apon induction to military service, transitioned from a militia of Citizens into Alaska Territorial Guardsmen, and were then, no longer Militia.

The Militia is made up of all of ''U.S.''

That's not correct. The federal government arms and prescribes training for the militia even during peacetime.

The 2nd AMENDMENT is called an "amendment" because it AMENDS or changes that which went before. Therefore the 2nd Amendment supercedes anything to the contrary in the original Constitution -- just as the 10th Amendment does.

It doesn't change the definition of words. There's no reason to believe that there are two definitions for the word militia.

 

[caribou]

That's not correct. The federal government arms and prescribes training for the militia even during peacetime.

Please show me an example of the Gov arming or training a Militia in peacetime.


Show me the$$.

The Militia is every able bodied Man. They have and keep their 'Arms'. When the Feds induct the Militia (take command) they are responsible to train, feed, pay, arm them, but when they are inducted, they go from being a 'Militia' to US Servicemen.
The example of Militia to Federal service with Alaskans has been posted and theres tons more info to find about such.
In my village, we are all the Fire dept, Search and Rescue, Militia, and whateverelse we think we need to organize for the safety of us and our neighbors. The Gov offers nothing. FEMA classes if were lucky....

 

[barnbwt]

I agree completely. The result -- which was to uphold the NFA -- was preordained. But the way the Miller case played out, the Court seemed to state that militia arms were protected, and non-militia arms were not. Now, if the item in question had been a Thompson submachine gun instead of a sawed off shotgun, and the Court had upheld the NFA in regard to that, we would have had a completely different principle. The NFA's application to automatic weapons was never tested in the Supreme Court during that time period. Indeed, Miller seemed to indicate that it would not apply to automatic weapons.

However, Miller was the primary binding precedent for all NFA challenges including MGs for over 70 years, despite its oddly myopic focus on a single part of the overarching law it upheld in full. Heller somehow hasn't been applied to NFA weapons even though that law also had an oddly narrow focus on pistols. Yet another double standard (unless tax & registration & owner vetting makes an SBR'd Glock pistol uniquely dangerous or uncommon)

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

http://volokh.com/2010/02/27/united-states-v-miller/
Interesting reading; I knew about the judicial corruption angle, but the other context of the players' personalities is illuminating.

TCB

 

[AlexanderA]

However, Miller was the primary binding precedent for all NFA challenges including MGs for over 70 years, despite its oddly myopic focus on a single part of the overarching law it upheld in full. Heller somehow hasn't been applied to NFA weapons even though that law also had an oddly narrow focus on pistols.

We have to keep in mind that the Supreme Court only decides the actual cases that are brought before it. Any overarching principles that are discussed in the Court opinions are dicta, and are not really binding. In the Heller case, the RKBA advocates carefully selected the plaintiff and the situation so as to present the Court with "low-hanging fruit" and make it as easy as possible for the Court to rule in favor of gun rights. (That was more than half the battle right there.) Gura, in his oral arguments, didn't hesitate to throw machine guns, etc., under the bus. And Scalia carved out such weapons for the same reason. It's going to take a big shift in public opinion (and in the makeup of the Court) before the 2nd Amendment is applied to so-called "militia" weapons. Therefore, no matter how you look at it, the 2nd Amendment, as it is applied today, is far from its original intent.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Therefore, no matter how you look at it, the 2nd Amendment, as it is applied today, is far from its original intent.

That's the key right there and it seems very few here are willing to recognize it's application when it was written and it's relevance today.

Even with the part about the militia in 2A it doesn't matter because there is no such thing as a militia in the US presently. About the closest thing we ever had to a militia was the draft and that ended in 1973. I would have been drafted if I hadn't enlisted. The draft and the militia system was based on the same concept, universal obligation. More people volunteered in the revolution and the war of 1812 but conscription was used in the colonies at the time. Actually, the War of 1812 was fought over American sailors being abducted from their ships on the high seas and forced into service on British war ships. At least that's one of the the reasons that was recorded.

If we were still using a system of militias I could see some relevance, but we don't. Our service is 100% voluntary. One of the reasons is people don't like the obligation of service. I find it interesting that Sweden operates on a working militia system and still has a draft. Note that people keep military supplied weapons and ammo in their homes.

 

[CoalTrain49]

That's not correct. The federal government arms and prescribes training for the militia even during peacetime.

Maybe in Sweden and Israel but not in this country. There is no militia in this country. You may be referring to private organizations like the 3 Percenters but they surely aren't sanctioned by the federal gov't. Anything but.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Uh, no.
Go read the text of the 21st Amendment.

Amendment XXI (1933)


Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Legally, if an amendment is meant to modify, change, or delete a portion of anything that preceeds it, that action is spelled out.

Where in the Constitution does it say that?

An Amendment automatically supercedes any previous article or Amendment that is contrary to the new Amendment.

 

[CapnMac]

An Amendment automatically supercedes any previous article or Amendment that is contrary to the new Amendment

To amend is add to, to amplify, or append new.

If an Amendment supersedes something, that something is specifically called out. Ref Amendment XXI op cit sup.
1, Section 8, clauses 15 & 146
To supersede the Militia Clause, the text would read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16 notwithstanding, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To superceede something that something must be specified.

 

[grampajack]

Some people in this thread have obviously not read the Constitution lately. And they definitely haven't read all the posts in this thread since I have quoted the applicable passages several times and they still apparently are not aware of what's written in Art 1.

The National Guard is the militia spoken of in Art 1. It has gone in an unconstitutional direction in the last century, but it is still by far the closest thing to a militia that we have, as outlined in Art 1. To make it constitutional, you would only have to remove its federal commanders and relocate its training bases to each Guard's respective state, as opposed to having them report to Benning et al for basic training. Not too far astray, comparatively speaking.

The Texas State Guard is another candidate, although I don't know if they get federal funding for their weapons. I do believe they adhere to federal training doctrine insofar as their budgets allow. Ideologically, they're probably the closest thing to a constitutional militia in existence right now, seeing as how all their officers are in state, and they answer solely to the Texas government.

And if "well regulated militia" isn't referring to the militia of Art 1 then what in tarnation does "well regulated" mean??? How is a bunch of farmers with guns, who have no official affiliation, supposed to be "well regulated?"

The militia and the people cannot be synonyms of one another in the context of the Constitution. The only logical conclusion is that the right to bear arms has nothing whatsoever to do with the militia, but rather that it ensures the people can defend themselves from the militia if it becomes oppressive. Think about Kent State and the actions of the National Guard and police after Katrina. Those are perfect examples of where the militia was turned on people who were exercising their constitutional rights by an out of control government.

I came into this unsure, but now I have zero doubt after studying the matter more closely. I hear you that some of our founders talked about a militia of the people, but they were referring to the unorganized militia, not to the "well regulated" militia of the 2nd Amendment. In short, the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the unorganized militia (aka the people) have the ability to protect themselves from the organized militia should it be used to oppress the rights of the people.

ETA: again, if the people are the militia referred to in Art 1 then I want my free M4. And I want a grenade launcher to go with it.

 

[caribou]

The National Guard is NOT a Militia, its a branch of the US Armed services.

Militia's are composed of armed CITIZENS, not inducted service men.

Once the distinction of Citizen and servicemen is figured out, you will know where the Militia is and its NOT in Federal Service. It is the armed platform that the US Armed Services will induct, train arm and pay during a time of war. Once inducted, they are NO LONGER MILITIA.

There are practising Militias all over the US. There is, for example, the 'Montana Militia', and right here in Noorvik AK, we have had Militia meeting for disaster preparedness.

The People in the Second Amendment ARE the Militia, one and the same. The words say so. They do not separate the Citizen from the Militia, because Militias are composed of Citizens, not Soldiers.

If it were about the National Guard, the 2nd A would say 'A National Guard, being necessary to the security of a free state, ............''''

Specifically since the 2A's '' A well regulated Militia being necessary,.........the Right of the People to keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed'' Its the Arms that those People keep and bear, that arms the militia.......a Militia of the very same people who bear and keep those arms......its so simple, I dont know why anyone argues for any other meaning.

The 2nd Amendment clearly uses 'Militia' and 'The People' being one and the same..

The right to keep and Bear arms, being an abled bodied man, that, my friends makes you 'militia' ot some purchased objects from a large Govornment.

The National Guard is not a Militia.Nor is the Navy, Nor is the Army, Nor are the Marines, not is the coast Guard, Nor is the AirForce.

Once a Citizen signs on the line, joining the Armed Forces, they are no longer a Citizen, they are a Serviceman. Once a Militiaman joins a service, hes no longer a Citizen, he is a Serviceman.

The Militia inthe 2nd Amendment is the People, they arms they keep and bear are what arms the militia.

 

[CoalTrain49]

The People in the Second Amendment ARE the Militia, one and the same. The words say so. They do not separate the Citizen from the Militia, because Militias are composed of Citizens, not Soldiers.

All one has to do is read the Federalist Papers 29 and 46 that were published 4 years before 2A existed. This will tell anyone what they need to know about the concept of militias in the constitution. Draw your own conclusions. My conclusion is it was an attempt to provide a national defense using civilians and not soldiers, letting the states bare the expense in peacetime and the federal gov't bare the expense in time of war. Well regulated civilians (militia) can be almost anyone ( the fire department comes to mind here) but they are definitely not soldiers. When one enlists in the military you are no longer under civilian authority, that simple.

 

[caribou]

The true meaning is best told by those who came up with this ideal we call 'Liberty'....and carried out that very ideal and formed this country.

W.Rawle explains the militia and how it is the resistance an invader or usurper would meet UNTILL a regular Army is established to do the fighting.


Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

William Rawle: “In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.” – William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1829)

George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

James Madison: “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

GEORGE MASON; I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.

 

[AlexanderA]

If the militia comprises all the citizenry, then the active-duty military and the National Guard are subsets of the citizenry, and they, too, are part of the "militia." Furthermore, since the President -- an elected civilian -- is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the Constitution provides for civilian control of the military. Therefore, unlike in some other countries, the military is not a separate caste apart from society at large. Even under the "militia" theory of the 2nd Amendment, people do not forfeit their gun rights by joining the military.

 

[Wisco]

If the militia comprises all the citizenry, then the active-duty military and the National Guard are subsets of the citizenry, and they, too, are part of the "militia." Furthermore, since the President -- an elected civilian -- is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the Constitution provides for civilian control of the military. Therefore, unlike in some other countries, the military is not a separate caste apart from society at large. Even under the "militia" theory of the 2nd Amendment, people do not forfeit their gun rights by joining the military.

Those who enlist or accept commissions in the Armed Forces are no longer civilians, but professional soldiers - definitely not civilians or even regular citizens really. The National Guard itself uses the slogan "citizen-soldiers" denoting that there is a distinction between soldiers and civilians.

Speaking of the caste system. It's been very well researched in the last 20 years or so how our military has gone from the draft to volunteer and how the military views themselves as higher beings than civilians and with less than 1% serving now, there's a massive divide in citizens versus service members. Then there's the "everyone is a hero" belief some civilians have toward anyone who served.

As for forfeiting rights, military members forfeit parts of just about every right...1st, 2nd, 4th, maybe others. If you've never had a commander or his crony have his way with your speech, personally owned weapon, or your living quarters, you're lucky. It happens often in the maintenance of "good order and discipline." Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, signing that contract is giving partial ownership (maybe full ownership in some units) of yourself to the POTUS, SECDEF and every commander between you and them.

 

[grampajack]

First of all, random quotes aren't the law of the land, regardless of who said them. There may have been some different ideas being traded back and forth, but only one version of those ideas got ratified into US law, and that's what is actually written in the Constitution, as it is written, in plain English. It doesn't even matter what their intentions were. All that matters is the plain speech, literally interpreted.

It has long been accepted that many of our founders recognized an "unorganized militia," and that "the people" are synonymous with it. But it's blatantly obvious that the militia in the Constitution is the Organized Militia, the one that is federally armed and regulated, yet commanded and trained by the respective states.

"The people" cannot be synonymous with "a well regulated militia." That would imply that the federal government is responsible for arming the entire country, prescribing their training, etc., and that the states are responsible for training every able bodied citizen. That would even imply mandatory conscription into the militia for every able bodied person, and we all know that is not the case.

We are not supposed to have an active duty army. The system outlined in the Constitution is supposed to provide for a strong national defense without creating a standing army that the federal government could use to oppress the people. The organized militia was a compromise between those two aims. They had to have universal arms and training to act as a cohesive military force during wartime, and placing them under the command of their respective states limited the federal government's ability to abuse them.

However, it's not just the federal government we have to worry about. Again, Kent State and Katrina make it obvious that the states are fully capable of abusing it all on their own. The 2nd Amendment was like a deadman switch to ensure that if the government, any government, tried to curtail individual liberties using the militia then the people had the arms necessary to rise up. It's a historical fact that oppressing the people requires disarming them first, and doing it in an orderly, legal fashion. The 2nd Amendment prevents that from happening.

 

[AlexanderA]

First of all, random quotes aren't the law of the land, regardless of who said them. There may have been some different ideas being traded back and forth, but only one version of those ideas got ratified into US law, and that's what is actually written in the Constitution, as it is written, in plain English. It doesn't even matter what their intentions were. All that matters is the plain speech, literally interpreted.

The intentions of the Founders matter a lot. "Legislative history" is often used by the courts in the interpretation and application of statutes. In the case of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the other writings of the Founders are part of the legislative history. If the plain English words were as clear as you say, we wouldn't even be having this discussion in this thread. Your contention that there are two different kinds of militias, an Article I militia and a 2nd Amendment militia, is a novel and minority view. Besides that, it doesn't serve the purposes of gun rights.

 

[RPRNY]

There was no tinfoil in the 1780s with which the Founders could have fashioned little helmets. Therefore, they are unlikely to have created warring militias in different parts of the constitution.

Article 1 establishes the militia. The Second Amendment expresses a sentiment by delegates to the Convention that having a well regulated militia is a good thing, and forbids the making of laws that infringe on RKBA. Congress has since violated that prohibition and the Court has upheld the violation, as in Miller.

 

[grampajack]

Your contention that there are two different kinds of militias, an Article I militia and a 2nd Amendment militia, is a novel and minority view. Besides that, it doesn't serve the purposes of gun rights.

I am not contending that at all. That is what I'm arguing against. My contention is that Art 1 and the 2nd are speaking of the exact same militia. It's others in this thread who are claiming the militia of Art 1 is different than the militia of the 2nd. They're claiming that Art 1 is speaking of the "organized militia" whereas the 2nd is speaking of an "unorganized militia."

What I'm saying is that the quotes in the federalist papers were speaking of a hypothetical unorganized militia that is synonymous with the people. And that's why they have no bearing on the Constitution, because the people cannot be synonymous with the militia of Art 1, and therefore by extension cannot be synonymous with the militia in the 2nd.

There was no tinfoil in the 1780s with which the Founders could have fashioned little helmets. Therefore, they are unlikely to have created warring militias in different parts of the constitution.

They didn't. In the Constitution, militia means militia, and if you want to know the definition just look at Art 1. It explains everything you could possibly want to know about it.

 

[caribou]

The 2nd amendment simply says 'Militia', not 'Organized Militia', not 'Unorganized Militia'.

What the founding fathers used as argument that became law is very relevant, the odd quips and quotes are just a sample of what the men of that time ment and intended.

The Militia is the People. The Supreme Court has said so.


Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:
'' Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people" – those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as "the people".....''

 

[barnbwt]

The RKBA has always been much more prominent in its placement (right behind numero uno on the list of peoples' civil rights, btw), and almost uniquely stark & forceful in its language, regardless what the "preface clause" obsessives would have us focus on. The fact the preface clause is not "Congress shall make no law infringing" instead of the intentionally broad language about infringement in general is/has always been very telling, even if ignored by scheming judges & politicians. McDonald should have never been needed to incorporate the right against states.

To look at this from another angle, the references to the militia in the constitution & bill of rights serve to ensure the militia are not disbanded by either the states or the feds. Because the feds retain limited shared authority/responsibility over the states' militia, a state deciding to ban the militia's access to effective combat arms can be viewed as a refutation of overriding federal authority (de-clawing the means by which rebellion was to be suppressed by the legitimate government is a distinctly seditious motive). Conversely, the feds had no authority to ban the militia in general by barring civilian access to arms (leaving the people vulnerable to martial law or coup)

The National Guard is the militia spoken of in Art 1. It has gone in an unconstitutional direction in the last century, but it is still by far the closest thing to a militia that we have, as outlined in Art 1. To make it constitutional, you would only have to remove its federal commanders and relocate its training bases to each Guard's respective state, as opposed to having them report to Benning et al for basic training. Not too far astray, comparatively speaking.

You do realize this is a key component of what makes a militia different from a standing army, yes? "Militia" doesn't simply mean a fighting force that's given fewer resources & missions than the professionals.

This is also a rather drastic departure, especially when you realize the primary reason for relocating troops all over the place in various barracks about a nation is to break them of their regional loyalty, so as to ensure allegiance to the nation above all else. Old Roman Legion practice that's both necessary and well documented (it's good that inter-service or commander rivalry is the worst it gets, and we don't have different state "teams" within a coordinated effort trying to sabotage or one-up each other on the job)

The National Guard is not a reliable check on federal military authority because of its upward-allegiance to the federal armed forces, nor is it really a 'home guard,' to be honest. The fact guardsmen can be/are deployed overseas for years at a time to pursue the fed's foreign adventures is a massive departure from anything the militia was intended to be. What was it, like two months they were to be deployed at most by the state governors absent extenuating circumstances? The service was not to disrupt their place in the community within reason, and their loyalty was not to extend much beyond the local level, either (that is why so much consideration to the training & upkeep of commanding officers was given in the Federalist Papers on this issue; everyone expected the head guys to immediately turn into Redcoats at Washington's beck & call)

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

The Militia is the People. The Supreme Court has said so.


Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:
'' Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people" – those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as "the people".....''

Scalia really should have mentioned that this subset was still a huge portion of the "political community," seeing as white male landowners above a certain age (when people often didn't live into their fifties) were the only ones doing the voting & office holding. Theoretically, almost all of them would be actively or previously affiliated with a local militia in some capacity (barring disability, I suppose). It's readily apparent that the only way to maintain such a broad degree of readiness without ridiculous expense, was to require private ownership throughout the community. Hamilton basically said it'd be impossible to ever buy rifle & kit for each man through tax revenue in the Federalist Papers; funny, huh? And while I don't believe it was explicitly spelled out in the constitution, state documents did mandate that active miliitamen procure their own rifles & gear for service, and keep them in working order, all from their own pocket in the same vein as their tax obligations.

"The 2nd amendment simply says 'Militia', not 'Organized Militia', not 'Unorganized Militia'."

Good point; RKBA is independent of the militia's management, or 'organization.' Totally separate issue. All it pertains to is their regulation, as far as their access to sufficient resources (specifically, armament distributed among the population via private ownership). And yes, Scalia basically said;
-The militia are the whole of the people (paraphrasing that other guy)
-Miller states that militia-suitable arms are not to be restricted
-Human rights dictates that self defense-suitable arms are not to be restricted
-But we don't want plebes to have cheap machineguns, so we won't let them

There's also the readily-proven fact that a collective right is a logical oxymoron; the collective always holds the all the power, and negotiates with individuals what their rights are to be within its system as the social contract. From what I have read, 'collective right' was so laughable a theory it wasn't even promoted until Miller had been allowed to fester for a few decades in leftist law school auditoriums. There is no evidence, at all, to support that this stupid notion peddled by the anti-gunners today was ever the guiding principle (unlike modern "peoples democratic republic" type democracies, our nation's founders weren't trying to pay lip service to populism while enslaving the nation with Orwellian word games)

TCB

 

[caribou]

There's also the readily-proven fact that a collective right is a logical oxymoron; the collective always holds the all the power, and negotiates with individuals what their rights are to be within its system as the social contract. From what I have read, 'collective right' was so laughable a theory it wasn't even promoted until Miller had been allowed to fester for a few decades in leftist law school auditoriums. There is no evidence, at all, to support that this stupid notion peddled by the anti-gunners today was ever the guiding principle (unlike modern "peoples democratic republic" type democracies, our nation's founders weren't trying to pay lip service to populism while enslaving the nation with Orwellian word games)

TCB

Good point Barnbwt.............The Collective Right is a logical oxymoron, but its not only an idea/theory, it is the propelling Ideal/force that gives way to a well armed people who do not want a Master, but a say, and just like the the Electoral Collage having the states vote for the Presidency, rather than a direct Democracy where large citys from over the hill and far away direct the doings of the Nation, the majority is kept in check. Same check with the recognition of Inalienable Rights......its the old Direct Democracy is 3 Wolves and a Sheep deciding whats for dinner, while a Constitutional Republic has 3 Wolves and a well armed Sheep deciding whats for dinner. Aaaaaaand the Wolves now want to ban guns....Sometimes, the majority must be kept from infringing on the fewer....

Old, young, man, woman, crippled or weak, guns make us equal.


And what Scalia wrote, matters. The People ARE the Militia and vice versa, my only point.....

 

[AlexanderA]

In modern terms, the "militia" is the base from which the active armed forces may be drawn, either by conscription or volunteering. That's the only thing that would be analogous to the 18th century "universal" militia that the Framers had in mind. There is no problem in seeing this as synonymous with "the people." (Indeed, if the draft were re-instituted today, it would doubtless include women, minorities, etc., categories that were excluded from the "militia" in the 18th century.) The 2nd Amendment is saying that this base should already be armed, before the need arises.

The Article I provisions concerning the militia, namely:

"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;"​

are totally consistent with this interpretation.