Skip to main content

View Diary: What IS a well-regulated militia? (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'd say each part is inseperable (0+ / 0-)

    Well regulated Militia (for two of three interpretive theories) demonstrate there is no right to bear arms.

    And looking at how used, well regulated militia was important.

    During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.[100] Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid—held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using clubs as their sole defensive weapon.[100] In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantes assumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms.[100]
    On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
       [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[101]
    •  3 interpretive theories mention above (0+ / 0-)

      Three basic competing models were offered to interpret the Second Amendment:[117]

          The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective rights" model, was that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals; rather, it recognized the right of a state to arm its militia.

          The second, known as the "sophisticated collective rights model", held that the Second Amendment recognized some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by members of a functioning, organized state militia while actively participating in the organized militia’s activities.

          The third, known as the "standard model", was that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

      Under both of the collective rights models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[118] These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era[119] and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site