2nd Amendment, Scalia and what the Founders meant: Commas, Common Sense and Justice. The question is how to interpret the comma after 'free state.'

[2aguy]

Looking at this in a pre-Heller landscape, based on court rulings up to Heller, the Second Amendment does not read like an independent personal-right provision. It begins with a prefatory clause explaining its object: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” The operative language then protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in service of that object, not in isolation. On the pre-Heller understanding, “the people” is a collective political body capable of militia service, and the right is therefore linked to the militia’s preservation, not detached from it.

The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause is not ornamental. It identifies the Amendment’s object: preserving a well regulated militia. Pre-Heller precedent, especially United States v. Miller, treated that militia purpose as the measure of the right. “The people” therefore does not create an untethered private right to possess firearms for personal use; it refers to the citizen body in its militia capacity, and the right protects arms possession only insofar as it bears a reasonable relationship to the militia’s effectiveness.

Heller materially changed the pre-Heller doctrinal landscape. If the pre-Heller understanding had already recognized an individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban would have been treated as unconstitutional long before Heller. Instead, Heller emerged only after a significant shift in constitutional thinking, aided by sustained advocacy from gun-rights organizations and conservative legal institutions.

The Supreme Court takes very few cases each year, and before they take a case they wait until there are splits in the lower courts, and years of rulings they can look at before they vote to take a case. Up until taking Heller, gun bans were not the widely used, and the D.C. ban was one of the first and dumbest and they waited to have more idiots like you banning guns before they had to correct you and tell you what morons you are.

 

[2aguy]

Looking at this in a pre-Heller landscape, based on court rulings up to Heller, the Second Amendment does not read like an independent personal-right provision. It begins with a prefatory clause explaining its object: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” The operative language then protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in service of that object, not in isolation. On the pre-Heller understanding, “the people” is a collective political body capable of militia service, and the right is therefore linked to the militia’s preservation, not detached from it.

The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause is not ornamental. It identifies the Amendment’s object: preserving a well regulated militia. Pre-Heller precedent, especially United States v. Miller, treated that militia purpose as the measure of the right. “The people” therefore does not create an untethered private right to possess firearms for personal use; it refers to the citizen body in its militia capacity, and the right protects arms possession only insofar as it bears a reasonable relationship to the militia’s effectiveness.

Heller materially changed the pre-Heller doctrinal landscape. If the pre-Heller understanding had already recognized an individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban would have been treated as unconstitutional long before Heller. Instead, Heller emerged only after a significant shift in constitutional thinking, aided by sustained advocacy from gun-rights organizations and conservative legal institutions.

And to your argument that Pre-Heller the understanding of the Right of the People to keep and Bear arms was not recognized......

======
3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause


We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above.


That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.


The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.).

And, you dope.......this was part of the understanding Pre-Heller.......and why the Supreme Court and lower courts hadn't had go back and explain why the Right was, in fact, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms....


Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g.,

A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556.

It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.
-----
And more from Scalia on all of the Precedents on the 2nd Amendment Pre-Heller showing that you don't know what you are talking about...
B


Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment.

Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them—Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service.

Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state … .” §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added). In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. See Vt. Const., ch. 1, §15, in 6 id., at 3741.
----
North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State … .”
----
The analogy makes no sense if firearms could not be used for any individual purpose at all. See also Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 244 (1983) (19th-century courts never read “common defence” to limit the use of weapons to militia service).
---------
We therefore believe that the most likely reading of all four of these pre-Second Amendment state constitutional provisions is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes.

Other States did not include rights to bear arms in their pre-1789 constitutions—although in Virginia a Second Amendment analogue was proposed (unsuccessfully) by Thomas Jefferson. (It read: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].”[Footnote 18] 1 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 344 (J. Boyd ed. 1950)).


Between 1789 and 1820, nine States adopted Second Amendment analogues.

-----
Many colonial statutes required individual arms-bearing for public-safety reasons—such as the 1770 Georgia law that “for the security and defence of this province from internal dangers and insurrections” required those men who qualified for militia duty individually “to carry fire arms” “to places of public worship.”
==========

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

 

[Hafar1014]

Looking at this in a pre-Heller landscape, based on court rulings up to Heller, the Second Amendment does not read like an independent personal-right provision. It begins with a prefatory clause explaining its object: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” The operative language then protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in service of that object, not in isolation. On the pre-Heller understanding, “the people” is a collective political body capable of militia service, and the right is therefore linked to the militia’s preservation, not detached from it.

The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause is not ornamental. It identifies the Amendment’s object: preserving a well regulated militia. Pre-Heller precedent, especially United States v. Miller, treated that militia purpose as the measure of the right. “The people” therefore does not create an untethered private right to possess firearms for personal use; it refers to the citizen body in its militia capacity, and the right protects arms possession only insofar as it bears a reasonable relationship to the militia’s effectiveness.

Heller materially changed the pre-Heller doctrinal landscape. If the pre-Heller understanding had already recognized an individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban would have been treated as unconstitutional long before Heller. Instead, Heller emerged only after a significant shift in constitutional thinking, aided by sustained advocacy from gun-rights organizations and conservative legal institutions.

The militia is made up of individuals not the government

 

[Rumpole]

The militia is made up of individuals not the government

That argument mangles the Constitution. The militia is not some free-floating, self-defined armed faction that exists outside government control. The Constitution does not treat the militia as an unregulated private force; it expressly authorizes Congress to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, while reserving to the States only the appointment of officers and the authority to train the militia under Congress’s prescribed discipline. See: Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990); U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15–16 (explaining that Congress has plenary authority to organize, arm, and discipline the militia)

 

[AZrailwhale]

That argument mangles the Constitution. The militia is not some free-floating, self-defined armed faction that exists outside government control. The Constitution does not treat the militia as an unregulated private force; it expressly authorizes Congress to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, while reserving to the States only the appointment of officers and the authority to train the militia under Congress’s prescribed discipline. See: Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990); U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15–16 (explaining that Congress has plenary authority to organize, arm, and discipline the militia)

Wrong. Read the Constitution and a little history. The only time the federal government has any control of the militia is when it is called up into federal service. The rest of the time it was a voluntary organization that was run by the members who often either elected their own officers, or the wealthy men who financed the unit were the officers. Militia units ranged from social clubs and barely organized neighborhood groups to tightly run military units and the battlefield results reflected that. You had units like the Overmountain Men and Francis Marion's raiders who were highly effective against regular troops to units that would run when the first musket balls arrived.

 

[2aguy]

That argument mangles the Constitution. The militia is not some free-floating, self-defined armed faction that exists outside government control. The Constitution does not treat the militia as an unregulated private force; it expressly authorizes Congress to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, while reserving to the States only the appointment of officers and the authority to train the militia under Congress’s prescribed discipline. See: Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990); U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15–16 (explaining that Congress has plenary authority to organize, arm, and discipline the militia)

And the Constitution gives the People, the Right to keep and Bear arms, outside of militia service.

 

[Rumpole]

Wrong. Read the Constitution and a little history. The only time the federal government has any control of the militia is when it is called up into federal service. The rest of the time it was a voluntary organization that was run by the members who often either elected their own officers, or the wealthy men who financed the unit were the officers. Militia units ranged from social clubs and barely organized neighborhood groups to tightly run military units and the battlefield results reflected that. You had units like the Overmountain Men and Francis Marion's raiders who were highly effective against regular troops to units that would run when the first musket balls arrived.

AZ, you’re not citing the Constitution -- you’re citing campfire mythology. You’re confusing how a handful of colonial militias behaved with what the Constitution actually commands. The supreme law of the land does not bend itself to 18th‑century improvisation. It replaces it.

You keep insisting federal authority only exists during a call‑up. That’s simply wrong. Article I, Section 8 has two militia clauses. Clause 15 deals with calling the militia forth. Clause 16 -- the one you keep skipping -- gives Congress the standing, continuous power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia. That power does not turn on only when the militia is activated. It exists at all times. It is structural. It is permanent.

And your story about wealthy patrons and self‑elected captains? That’s not constitutional authority -- that’s local custom. The Constitution explicitly gives the States the power to appoint militia officers and train the militia under federally prescribed discipline. If a militia company elected its captain, it was because a state government allowed it. The unit existed because the state legally created it. It was never a sovereign private army. It was never outside government control. It was a creature of state law operating inside a federal framework.

The Supreme Court has already crushed your theory. In Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990), the Court held that Congress’s authority over the militia is plenary. Meaning complete. Meaning continuous. Meaning your “voluntary club” version of the militia has no constitutional foundation whatsoever.

Yes, early militias ranged from Francis Marion’s raiders to units that evaporated at the first volley. But you’ve inverted the entire point of the Militia Clauses. The Framers wrote those clauses because the militia was inconsistent, unreliable, and often chaotic. You are pointing to the problem and insisting it was the plan. It wasn’t. It was the reason the plan had to be written.

You’re not arguing history, AZ. You’re arguing nostalgia dressed up as constitutional interpretation. The Constitution is not a scrapbook of frontier heroics. It is a command structure. And on the militia, that command structure is absolute.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

AZ, you’re not citing the Constitution -- you’re citing campfire mythology. You’re confusing how a handful of colonial militias behaved with what the Constitution actually commands. The supreme law of the land does not bend itself to 18th‑century improvisation. It replaces it.

You keep insisting federal authority only exists during a call‑up. That’s simply wrong. Article I, Section 8 has two militia clauses. Clause 15 deals with calling the militia forth. Clause 16 -- the one you keep skipping -- gives Congress the standing, continuous power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia. That power does not turn on only when the militia is activated. It exists at all times. It is structural. It is permanent.

And your story about wealthy patrons and self‑elected captains? That’s not constitutional authority -- that’s local custom. The Constitution explicitly gives the States the power to appoint militia officers and train the militia under federally prescribed discipline. If a militia company elected its captain, it was because a state government allowed it. The unit existed because the state legally created it. It was never a sovereign private army. It was never outside government control. It was a creature of state law operating inside a federal framework.

The Supreme Court has already crushed your theory. In Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990), the Court held that Congress’s authority over the militia is plenary. Meaning complete. Meaning continuous. Meaning your “voluntary club” version of the militia has no constitutional foundation whatsoever.

Yes, early militias ranged from Francis Marion’s raiders to units that evaporated at the first volley. But you’ve inverted the entire point of the Militia Clauses. The Framers wrote those clauses because the militia was inconsistent, unreliable, and often chaotic. You are pointing to the problem and insisting it was the plan. It wasn’t. It was the reason the plan had to be written.

You’re not arguing history, AZ. You’re arguing nostalgia dressed up as constitutional interpretation. The Constitution is not a scrapbook of frontier heroics. It is a command structure. And on the militia, that command structure is absolute.

the second is an individual right with no requirement one be in the militia. But as to the Militia by federal laq that is everyone able bodied that is 17 to 45. If you bar them from weapons that violates the militia act.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[westwall]

Your quote is not from any court ruling, so political slogans are irrelevant to law, that's how are country works. Moreover, you're missing the point; The Second Amendment, as construed in Heller, is no longer a militia-based provision; and because modern weapons vastly exceed founding-era weaponry, the text does not clearly define scope, so a modern amendment would be a better place to specify the right and its limits.

Doesn't matter. That is the way laws work in free societies. Dictatorships outlaw anything that is not specifically permitted.

Silly boy.

 

[westwall]

But it's not unlimited. Heller recognized that the Second Amendment does not protect "dangerous and unusual weapons" and stated that "M-16 rifles and the like" may be banned. However, the Court did not clearly define which weapons fall within that category, leaving substantial room for dispute in subsequent Second Amendment litigation.

Categorically false. Heller recognized that weapons in COMMON USE are protected. And at 30,000,000 and counting AR type rifles are EXTREMELY COMMON.

 

[westwall]

I believe your question has an assumed premise. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Tis the other way round my friend.

 

[westwall]

Yes. There was cannon at the militia armory the British wer marching to seize at the Battle of Lexington and Concord.
"



Like
Dislike

Militia Artillery Units in the American Revolutionary War​

During the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the colonial militia formed the backbone of the Patriot forces, but they were not a full-time, professional army. Instead, they were part-time, locally organized volunteer units drawn from adult male citizens, often farmers, artisans, and tradespeople grokipedia.com. While most militia units were infantry, some states and commanders raised artillery components to supplement the Continental Army’s firepower.

Role and Organization​

• Artillery in the militia was typically light field artillery, not heavy siege guns. These were often muskets with long barrels or light cannons (like 3–6 pounders) mounted on carts or wagons.
• Artillery was usually attached to infantry regiments rather than forming independent units. For example, Connecticut’s militia regiments sometimes included light dragoon or artillery companies alongside foot and horse units Wikiwand +1.
• Artillery service was short-term—often weeks or months—because militia members were expected to return to civilian life after the threat passed grokipedia.com.
• Many militia artillerymen were volunteers who could also serve as infantry, and they often provided their own weapons and equipment Wikipedia.

Examples of Militia Artillery Units​

While comprehensive state-by-state lists of artillery companies are limited, some known militia units that included artillery or light gunnery roles include:

• Governor’s Foot Guards (Connecticut) – sometimes equipped with light guns for ceremonial or defensive use Wikiwand .
• Seymour’s Regiment of Light Dragoons (Connecticut) – light cavalry with potential for artillery support in skirmishes Wikiwand .
• 1st Battalion State Regiment (Connecticut) – included artillery components alongside infantry Wikiwand .
• Various militia regiments in states like Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia often had artillery companies attached for specific campaigns, especially in the Southern theater where mobility was key grokipedia.com.

Tactical Use​

• Militia artillery was used for defensive positions, supporting infantry assaults, and harassing British lines in skirmishes.
• In the Southern campaigns, partisan militia bands sometimes used light artillery to disrupt British supply lines and communications grokipedia.com.
• Because militia artillery was less disciplined and less mobile than the Continental Army’s, it was often deployed in support roles rather than as the main offensive arm.

Summary​

Militia artillery units in the Revolutionary War were light, mobile, and irregular compared to the Continental Army’s standardized artillery. They were integrated into infantry regiments, often provided by volunteers, and used primarily for support and harassment rather than sustained siege operations. Their existence reflected the need to supplement the Continental Army’s firepower with locally available manpower and resources Wikipedia+2."

The inherent bias of the AI is quite noticeable as it left out the most famous independent artillery unit in the Colonies, The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston Massachusetts. They were founded in 1638 IIRC.

 

[westwall]

That argument mangles the Constitution. The militia is not some free-floating, self-defined armed faction that exists outside government control. The Constitution does not treat the militia as an unregulated private force; it expressly authorizes Congress to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, while reserving to the States only the appointment of officers and the authority to train the militia under Congress’s prescribed discipline. See: Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990); U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15–16 (explaining that Congress has plenary authority to organize, arm, and discipline the militia)

No it doesn't you ridiculous clod. The militia was ALWAYS recognized as independent of the Federal government.

 

[westwall]

AZ, you’re not citing the Constitution -- you’re citing campfire mythology. You’re confusing how a handful of colonial militias behaved with what the Constitution actually commands. The supreme law of the land does not bend itself to 18th‑century improvisation. It replaces it.

You keep insisting federal authority only exists during a call‑up. That’s simply wrong. Article I, Section 8 has two militia clauses. Clause 15 deals with calling the militia forth. Clause 16 -- the one you keep skipping -- gives Congress the standing, continuous power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia. That power does not turn on only when the militia is activated. It exists at all times. It is structural. It is permanent.

And your story about wealthy patrons and self‑elected captains? That’s not constitutional authority -- that’s local custom. The Constitution explicitly gives the States the power to appoint militia officers and train the militia under federally prescribed discipline. If a militia company elected its captain, it was because a state government allowed it. The unit existed because the state legally created it. It was never a sovereign private army. It was never outside government control. It was a creature of state law operating inside a federal framework.

The Supreme Court has already crushed your theory. In Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990), the Court held that Congress’s authority over the militia is plenary. Meaning complete. Meaning continuous. Meaning your “voluntary club” version of the militia has no constitutional foundation whatsoever.

Yes, early militias ranged from Francis Marion’s raiders to units that evaporated at the first volley. But you’ve inverted the entire point of the Militia Clauses. The Framers wrote those clauses because the militia was inconsistent, unreliable, and often chaotic. You are pointing to the problem and insisting it was the plan. It wasn’t. It was the reason the plan had to be written.

You’re not arguing history, AZ. You’re arguing nostalgia dressed up as constitutional interpretation. The Constitution is not a scrapbook of frontier heroics. It is a command structure. And on the militia, that command structure is absolute.

More lies. And how do we know you are lying?

30,000,000 plus AR type rifles, plus 350,000,000 OTHER firearms.

You are literally talking out your keester.