What is Meant by "Well Regulated"?

[meaner gene]

Yes, that's what the Texas State Guard is. The difference between it and the Texas National Guard, is that the Texas National Guard can be federalized at any time. It essentially is federal and on loan to the state of Texas, for approved purposes.

The Texas state guard is not a "militia" as defined in the constitution, or it could be federalized under Article 2 of the US Constitution. It was set up like a domestic police force, so as not to be a militia.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nowhere in the 27 Grievances against England in the Declaration of Independence does it mention access to firearms

Access to firearms has nothing to do with regulation; and there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the notion of armed citizens ‘self-regulating’ completely absent government control and oversight.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is to do so in the service and defense of the state, as authorized and controlled by government.

That’s why the Heller Court saw fit to contrive the individual right unconnected with militia service, because the Second Amendment recognized a collective right.

And the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment would allow banning individuals from possessing firearms because they weren’t in the service of a militia – which is why the Heller Court invalidated the collective right interpretation.

Indeed, Heller was about the individual right versus the collective right.

Hence the right’s ‘militia’ canard, the failed, inane attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment, its case law, and necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures where private citizens should have access to the same weapons as the Federal military.

Wrong.

The ‘left’ follows settled accepted Second Amendment case law; whereas the right has nothing but contempt for that case law.

Correct – and controlled by their respective governments.

You are one ignorant piece of shit

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

You seem to be confused about rights granted to a collective, that devolve down to the individuals who are members of that collective. Such as if a group of adults hold an assemblage on a public school playground, they can do so. But a lone adult hanging around a school playground claiming his right to assemble would be removed or arrested.

That group holding the assemblage would only be able to do so with authorization from the school, just like a lone adult would. Being a group doesn't give them any more right than the lone individual.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Mercenaries get paid ( usually in advance)

So did militias.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, you don’t.

You’ll never have ‘equal or superior firepower’ to the ‘government.’

And no one says you can’t have an AR 15, there’s simply no ‘need’ for one for effective self-defense.

Conservatives need to stop with this “I need an AR 15” nonsense – it’s ridiculous and in no way compelling.

AR 15s shouldn’t be banned because it’s unwarranted government excess and overreach as well as being ineffective and pointless.

How did that fire power work out in Afghanistan?
Again you ignorant leftist terrorist show the word need in the Bill of Rights? It's fucking nonsense for you too give your unwarranted opinion

 

[Seymour Flops]

The Texas state guard is not a "militia" as defined in the constitution, or it could be federalized under Article 2 of the US Constitution. It was set up like a domestic police force, so as not to be a militia.

Article two does not say a militia can be "federalized," it says it can be "called into the actual Service of the United States." The Texas State Guard's mission statement says:

The mission of the Texas State Guard (TXSG) is to provide mission-ready military forces to assist state and local authorities in times of state emergencies; to conduct homeland security and community service activities under the umbrella of Defense Support to Civil Authorities, and to augment the Texas Army National Guard and Texas Air National Guard as required.

If the president federalized the Texas National Guard, he could also request that the state guard be called into the actual Service of the United States, to augment the National Guard, or to perform the NG's missions in Texas, freeing them up to go fight in Ukraine or whatever other foreign hell-hole he wants to send them to.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is a lie.

The rightwing racist picked the store solely to murder Americans of color.

He picked a place that would have the least resistance liar.

 

[meaner gene]

That group holding the assemblage would only be able to do so with authorization from the school, just like a lone adult would. Being a group doesn't give them any more right than the lone individual.

Wrong. Public school grounds are just that public. They have laws, rules and regulations regarding their use.

Can the school playground be used for the public?

Answer (1 of 5): I work at a school and also frequent school playgrounds with my dogs. The key is that during school hours, the safety of the children is paramount and having unaccounted for “guests" is a huge liability. Just yesterday we had a guy with 2 small children just come into the playgr...

www.quora.com

A public schools playground is public property- it is property paid for by taxes - However the school can restrict its use during school hours for child safety etc.

The regulations to exclude adults would have to be greater than the constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

A lone adult, without an assemblage can be excluded as a danger to the students.

 

[meaner gene]

If the president federalized the Texas National Guard, he could also request that the state guard be called into the actual Service of the United States, to augment the National Guard, or to perform the NG's missions in Texas, freeing them up to go fight in Ukraine or whatever other foreign hell-hole he wants to send them to.

Wrong. The Texas State Guard is under the exclusive control of the Governor of Texas, who could transfer them to the Texas National Guard. But the commander in chief can't make that transfer.

The Texas State Guard can't be "federalized", just like the Texas State Police, can't be federalized.

 

[Failzero]

So did militias.

From 2011 2015 I was never paid a Dime ( And as far as I know as an Inactive Reserve in the current California State Militia no one is paid either ( except some members of the Cottonwood Platoon & Redding Platoon who have been Extras& starred in 3-4 Regionally Produced & Made B Movies (Action/ Horror Films )

 

[Seymour Flops]

Wrong. The Texas State Guard is under the exclusive control of the Governor of Texas, who could transfer them to the Texas National Guard. But the commander in chief can't make that transfer.

The Texas State Guard can't be "federalized", just like the Texas State Police, can't be federalized.

You're the one who keeps saying "federalized," not me. They can be called into the actual service of the United States, or state why they could not be. That isn't federalizing them, as has been done in the past to National guards against the will of the governors.

 

[Ringtone]

It's the common definition at the time it was written that mattered and in the 18th century well regulated meant in proper working order not government controlled

Second Amendment​

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.
​

What is the Militia?​

The Founders believed that all men between the ages of 18 and 45 who were physically capable were members of the Militia. It was up to these men to be the first line of defense against any enemy attack.

​

In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller) Page 22​

​

​

The Militia is not created by Congress, nor is Congress empowered to create a militia.

Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create ("to raise . . . Armies"; "to provide . . . a Navy," Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the Militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it—and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the Militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" Militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the Militia as all able-bodied men. —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller) Page 23​

What does well regulated mean?​

Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller) Page 23​

 

[whitehall]

Why isn't the 2nd Amendment guaranteed right to bear arms regulated enough for the left?

 

[Failzero]

Why isn't the 2nd Amendment guaranteed right to bear arms regulated enough for the left?

They want Guns only for themselves ?

 

[Ringtone]

"A well regulated militia" doesn't mean much in the context of the 2A. It's a desire to have a militia that is well regulated, rather than saying it must be.

The Amendment is about the militia, about protecting the militia.

You protect the militia by protecting the arms (keep arms) and the personnel (bear arms).

It's not a difficult amendment to understand, what's difficult is that everyone's trying to get it to fit their own agenda.

Not quite!

Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller) Page 23

The Founders presupposed that the able-bodied citizenry of which the Militia is comprised would necessarily be subject to and commonsensically know they were subject to proper discipline and training.

 

[Ringtone]

Why do you hate a secure free state?

Why would you oppose regulating militias?

What do you mean by regulating militias? And what entity is supposed to regulate the Militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Ringtone]

How is a militia in proper working order?

Well trained, command structure, well equipped, you know who is in it

All militias have been under government control either state or local

False.

Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller) Page 23

 

[AZrailwhale]

From 2011 2015 I was never paid a Dime ( And as far as I know as an Inactive Reserve in the current California State Militia no one is paid either ( except some members of the Cottonwood Platoon & Redding Platoon who have been Extras& starred in 3-4 Regionally Produced & Made B Movies (Action/ Horror Films )

Inactive reserve doesn't get paid unless activated. Active reserve and NG get paid. Militia on active duty got paid as much as Continentials when congress got around to actually having money to pay them.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Wrong. Public school grounds are just that public. They have laws, rules and regulations regarding their use.

Can the school playground be used for the public?

Answer (1 of 5): I work at a school and also frequent school playgrounds with my dogs. The key is that during school hours, the safety of the children is paramount and having unaccounted for “guests" is a huge liability. Just yesterday we had a guy with 2 small children just come into the playgr...

www.quora.com

A public schools playground is public property- it is property paid for by taxes - However the school can restrict its use during school hours for child safety etc.

The regulations to exclude adults would have to be greater than the constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

A lone adult, without an assemblage can be excluded as a danger to the students.

Yeah, sure, show up at a school house, with a group of 10 people without permission to occupy the playground and see how many rights you have...lol. The right to remain silent and the right to an attorney maybe.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You seem to be confused about rights granted to a collective, that devolve down to the individuals who are members of that collective. Such as if a group of adults hold an assemblage on a public school playground, they can do so. But a lone adult hanging around a school playground claiming his right to assemble would be removed or arrested.

I might seem a lot of things to you.

The reality is if you have a group of people and you say "the group has the right, not the individual" then the government can come along and take individuals out of the group and say "well, the group still has the right, but you have no right, so shut up and get out of the group"

You're saying that because individuals have to be in a group for there to be a right, that only the group has the right.
I'm saying that if only the group has the right, then no individuals do, which means the government can stop ALL INDIVIDUALS from peacefully assembling, as long as it doesn't stop "the group". So if 100,000 people want to protest, they can choose two people who are "the group" and tell everyone else to go away.

Your way DOESN'T WORK.