What is Meant by "Well Regulated"?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's still not collective. It might require two or more people, but the individual still has the right.

Collective rights do exist as legal doctrine – such as the right to engage in collective bargaining (NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)); clearly a worker alone possesses no such right.

And as we saw prior to Heller, The Second Amendment codified a collective right – there was no individual right to possess a firearm.

Prior to McDonald, of course, the Second Amendment applied solely to the Federal government.

State governments were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit, including recognizing an individual right to possess a firearm.

 

[ThisIsMe]

‘The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller…’

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

The original intent of the Framers was to codify in the Second Amendment a collective – not individual – right subject to government regulation.

Now it’s an individual right as determined by the Heller Court – still subject to government regulation.

But there were already standing armies at the time, and the constitution lays out their responsibility to maintain a navy. The militia would therefore be something other than one of those two.

One would argue that a militia refers to a the national guard, others argue that its citizen militias. What is clear is that cotus says "the people" have a right to be armed, not the militia explicitly. The people, as in each person between 18 and 45, had to be prepared, having certain provisions readily available.

I don't believe 2A is in reference to a collective. I believe it is refers to the individual, and it also says "shall not be infringed". There's no ambiguity in that statement. It means what it means. I'm sure you'll find 100s of scholars, and even just as many courts that will interpret it in just as many ways as there are ideologies.

Interpretation isn't always a good thing. Just look at where we are with roe, interpretation, and people are angry about that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Okay, so an individual can't just be on the ballot if he chooses to? Then there's not a RIGHT.

You can have qualifications for a right. There's not right to stand for president. Elon Musk as a US CITIZEN does not have the right to stand for president, therefore NOBODY has the RIGHT to stand for president.

No right to be a candidate.

There is a First Amendment right to run for political office (Williams v. Rhodes (1968)), but like other rights, it is neither unlimited nor absolute and subject to regulation, such as filing fees for political candidates.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is where the 2nd amendment argument meets it's failure mode as being an individual right. Because many of the rigthts we see as individual, are actually collective rights, with those over 18 years old, being part of that collective.

What does the US Constitution State regarding juveniles and jury trials?
Juveniles should hold the right to a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution, but they do not. In most states, when a trial occurs, a single judge determines whether a youth loses their liberty, and that imprisonment can last for years.

But it is individual. Because it'd FAIL if it weren't individual.

If the right to own weapons were collective, then there'd be no weapons
If the right to be in the militia were collective, then there'd be no militia personnel.

Minors are not considered to have full right.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually that would be a right granted to a "group" (natural born citizens) from which individuals inherit the right.

Just like the right to run for senate is from the group of over 30.

Again, IT CANNOT BE A RIGHT IF NOT EVERYONE HAS IT. Simple FACT.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is a First Amendment right to run for political office (Williams v. Rhodes (1968)), but like other rights, it is neither unlimited nor absolute and subject to regulation, such as filing fees for political candidates.

Well... this seems to me that this case was more about putting a heavy burden on getting onto the ticket. It didn't say there was a right to stand. It merely said it had to be fair. I don't see this case as giving anywhere near enough power to a supposed "right to stand for public office".
They could do numerous things to stop certain classes of people from standing and it would be considered "fair" under that ruling, like age limitation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Collective rights do exist as legal doctrine – such as the right to engage in collective bargaining (NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)); clearly a worker alone possesses no such right.

And as we saw prior to Heller, The Second Amendment codified a collective right – there was no individual right to possess a firearm.

Prior to McDonald, of course, the Second Amendment applied solely to the Federal government.

State governments were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit, including recognizing an individual right to possess a firearm.

I disagree that it's a collective right. It's an individual right to do something collectively.

If they could ban all individuals from doing something collectively, then the collective can't do anything. They haven't banned the collective from doing anything, they banned only the individuals.
That people have tried to make a collective right shows how creative people can be, rather than there's actually a collective right.

 

[Ringtone]

‘The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller…’

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

The original intent of the Framers was to codify in the Second Amendment a collective – not individual – right subject to government regulation.

Now it’s an individual right as determined by the Heller Court – still subject to government regulation.

You write:

The original intent of the Framers was to codify in the Second Amendment a collective – not individual – right subject to government regulation.​

​

Now it’s an individual right as determined by the Heller Court – still subject to government regulation.​

Bullshit!

It is clear from both the reading of the Federalist Papers and the Amendment that the right to keep and bear arms is necessarily an inherent right of the individual. In Miller, the Court rightly observed that the Militia preexists Congress in the people themselves, but then unnecessarily tied Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce to the effectiveness of the Militia. The Court inadvertently implied a collective right. The thrust of Heller was to revisit what Miller got right and then strike its bumbling justification.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

constitutioncenter.org

What is your definition of a "well regulated Militia"?

Great info. Credible and reasoned:

[ Gun control is as much a part of the Second Amendment as the right to keep and bear arms. The text of the amendment, which refers to a “well regulated Militia,” suggests as much. As the Supreme Court correctly noted in District of Columbia v. Heller(2008), the militia of the founding era was the body of ordinary citizens capable of taking up arms to defend the nation. While the Founders sought to protect the citizenry from being disarmed entirely, they did not wish to prevent government from adopting reasonable regulations of guns and gun owners. ]

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Well regulated" modifies "militia".
The right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd, is held by the people.
Not the militia.
Not the well-regulated militia.
Not the people in the well-regulated militia.
The people.

Thus, whatever 'well regulated" means it is irrelevant in determining who holds the right to keep and bear arms, as protected ny the 2nd.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

What Does "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean in the Second Amendment?

Think back to when the Founders were living. Britain was a powerful government oppressing the American colonists. The Founding Fathers didn't like the fact that the government was so powerful. Many were opposed to the idea of a standing army for fear that it would one day be turned against the...

www.carryuniversitytraining.com

One more snippet to get perspective:

[
The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. ]

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

 

[M14 Shooter]

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller…’

Heller did not overturn anything held in Miller.

The original intent of the Framers was to codify in the Second Amendment a collective – not individual – right subject to government regulation.

^^^^
This is a lie.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

"Well regulated" modifies "militia".
The right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd, is held by the people.
Not the militia.
Not the well-regulated militia.
Not the people in the well-regulated militia.
The people.

Thus, whatever 'well regulated" means it is irrelevant in determining who holds the right to keep and bear arms, as protected ny the 2nd.

gobbledygook - meaning?

 

[Ringtone]

Heller did not overturn anything held in Miller.

^^^^
This is a lie.

Correct! But the Court's ham-fisted justification, as said in passing (dicta), in Miller was an on-going source of confusion that was emphatically righted by the Court in Heller. See post #248.

 

[meaner gene]

Again, IT CANNOT BE A RIGHT IF NOT EVERYONE HAS IT. Simple FACT.

In at least one way you're right. Take the right of marriage. You can't restrict marrying a man to half the population, it's open to everyone.

 

[Ringtone]

One more snippet to get perspective:

[
The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. ]

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. ​

Caveat: The Militia maintains its organizationally organic nature as rooted in the people themselves under natural and constitutional law.

 

[Ringtone]

In at least one way you're right. Take the right of marriage. You can't restrict marrying a man to half the population, it's open to everyone.

You shouldn't be giving Jones' posts a thumbs up. He's wrong. See my rebuttals above.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

You shouldn't be giving Jones' posts a thumbs up. He's wrong. See my rebuttals above.

The family businesses

And all parasites and cowards

 

[frigidweirdo]

In at least one way you're right. Take the right of marriage. You can't restrict marrying a man to half the population, it's open to everyone.

I'm right in lots of ways, and I'm right on this one.

I know I'm right because your argument has fizzled out.

 

[meaner gene]

I'm right in lots of ways, and I'm right on this one.

I know I'm right because your argument has fizzled out.

Actually many of the "rights" you think of as individual rights, are more easily explained as a group right, like the right to run for president. That group started as white males over 35 and natural born citizens.

As an individual right there were too many exceptions