There is no "right" to be in, or join the militia. Congress' criteria for enrollment was specific and anyone not meeting the criteria of a, "
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" was excluded from enrollment.
The Abolitionist legislature in Massachusetts found that out, they wanted to raise the political situation of Blacks and include Blacks in their state militia rolls but the idea was rejected because of federal militia law. Going the other way, slave sates conditioned their state's right to arms protection on militia enrollment eligibility so laws forbidding arms to Blacks could be sustained.
One of the reasons the clause was objected to was because the provision was, (as Gerry explained, which you didn't quote), "
to prevent the maladministration of government".
The framers were always wary and suspect of any wording that would allow the government to misconstruct the intent to protect rights, into a mechanism to restrict rights.
It was feared that government could declare who are religiously scrupulous or declare all were religiously scrupulous and declare all unsuitable to exercise the right and diminish or hobble the militia.
The proposed clause you are focused on initially passed the House but was stricken in the Senate. The Senate debates were not recorded so we don't know the actual arguments that led to it being stricken before it was sent back to he House.
Consider though, the proposed amendment was not an appropriate vehicle for rules for militia, its only intent was to
restrain government power.
How to exercise the Section 8 militia powers to regulate under law the organized militia, was already under discussion and the Militia Act of 1792 as enacted, contains a long list of citizens who are excepted from militia duty.
Interestingly, a word search in the
Congressional Documents and Debates turns up no results for "religiously scrupulous" in the Second Congress, so whatever the perceived need for that exclusion in the debates of the proposed bill of rights in the summer of 1789, did not arise in the debates over the proposed Militia Act begun in the Fall of 1791.
A recognition of the exceptions that are codified in state laws exists in the final Militia Act, with no mention of the specifics of those exceptions or mention of any standing or future federal criteria to allow or disallow those state exceptions:
"II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."
Your example of a rejected proposal, is much ado about nothing and any inference you build on the proposed exception is an over-reading and precisely the kind of misconstruction the Federalists warned us about.
Whatever
you feel
he thought the words of the 2nd recognize, the right to keep and bear arms is a
right of the people, not assigned to, belonging to, or confined to the militia.
Members of the militia, in the performance of their service have no need of a "right to keep and bear arms". Everything a citizen does as an enrolled militia member, from how they acquire a gun and what type it is to when and how to carry it, was directed by
law.
And are you really arguing Gerry's or Jackson's statements (or any Rep's you chop quote) were the sentiments of the whole House at the time? Should either AOC's or MTG's 2020 statements be represented as the opinion of the whole House in 2220?
Jackson's objection was that those claiming the exemption could evade service, whether or not they were actually Quakers and people who
did serve would need to defend them . . . So either by decree or personal choice, those citizens who were considered "religiously scrupulous" could be eliminated from the citizens recognized as possessing the right to bear arms, thus evade liability / obligation to serve in the militia if it was called-up and the overall effectiveness of the militia would be diminished. It was not uncommon in the laws of states that
those claiming an exception from duty, paid someone to serve in their stead; that's all Jackson was proposing.
In the final account, the exercise of the right to arms is subject only to the individual's free will. One can neither be compelled to exercise the right or be required to justify their need to exercise a right. The entire premise of the "religiously scrupulous" exemption runs counter to the concept of a right which is why it was rejected. The entire idea is absurd and your machinations and inventions against the RKBA from the "religiously scrupulous" exemption shows the wisdom of the framers in rejecting it.
Why would there be?
Because the powers of government were expressly stated in the body of the Constitution and "in fact there's nothing about self defense, nothing about walking around with guns" being restrained in the powers granted, no power exists for the federal government to even compose a thought on those actions.
The 2ndA isn't a permission slip for the citizen, a list the citizen refers to to find out what he's allowed to do . . .
"
In fact" the 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything; it's merely a redundant declaration that the government is forbidden to exercise powers it was never granted.
