In fact it mandates it.
In the Supreme Court majority opinion in the Heller case written by Justice Scalia the point is made that formal membership in the state militia is not required by the individual for that individual to secure a personal right to keep and bear arms ...because in the wording of the time "all male adults" are considered to be members of the "citizen militia " to be called upon in times of national defense. Hence, all adult citizens (women too) are members of the general citizens militia and entitled to keep and bear arms.
The plain reading of the Second Amendment " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed " obviously requires a well regulated militia
Well, the general citizens militia is not "well regulated", it's hardly regulated at all!
We need general regulations of the type the state militias use such as, instruction, training, certification, review, arms storage and yes arms type. It's important to note that in the Heller decision Scalia made the expressed point that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit regulation.
Our leaders have failed us and allowed the NRA to make a perversion of the 2nd Amendment and our daily lives a game of Russian roulette - who will be next to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
The problem is gun grabbers hide banning inside of regulation, and make laws that are not designed to make sure a law abiding citizen is getting the firearm, but to make the process so time consuming and expensive that people either don't try or just give up. In NYC it takes 3-6 months and $600 or so in fees just to get a revolver to keep in your own home or apartment. That is not regulation, that is infringement.
And as usually is done, you misread the 2nd amendment. The 1st part guarantees the States the rights to keep their own armed forces. It's the 2nd part, that has ZERO to do wit the States that gives the PEOPLE the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
If mandating a regulated state militia is unconnected to the right to keep and bear arms why are they in the same Amendment? Or why not at least a separate sentence?
Because they are connected, as Scalia pointed out all adult citizens are members of the citizens militia, mandated by the 2nd Amendment as "well regulated ". Remember, Scalia expressly stated the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit regulation.
You think that the word “militia” in the Second Amendment is significant. It isn't. According to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and has nothing to do with the militia!! Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.
v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008):
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither
United States v.
Cruikshank,
92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v.
Illinois,
116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation.
United States v.
Miller,
307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia,
i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.54–56.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Conclusion: The right to keep and bear arms is a personal right completely unrelated to membership in a militia. However the right is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions. What constitutes a reasonable restriction is a matter for the courts to decide. Anyone who is unaware of the SCOTUS decision needs to find different news sources.
I suggest you go to Google and research the difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause. When you do, you will understand the SCOTUS ruling. The difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause is sort of like the difference between the “whereas” and “therefore” clauses in a motion. What follows the words, “therefore, be it resolved” is the binding part. It is binding whether the whereas portions are true or not. Although the Constitution does not use terms such as “whereas” and “therefore”, legal scholar know which provisions merely state a purpose and which parts are binding.
Don't bother to thank me. That's why I'm here.
What bothers me the most is that the SCOTUS ruling was way back in 2008 and far too many people are still completely unaware of it. It makes me wonder where they get their news from.
PS: I have a doctorate in law and I understand the reasoning behind the SCOTUS decision. You don't have to understand it; you merely have to accept it.
