What is the meaning of "militia" in the second amendment?

[robertacollier]

A militia is always subject to organization by the state.

That's the first few words of the 2nd amendment. That organization follows from the second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The second part is further supported by the first part, "being necessary to the security of a free state."

You're not going to have much freedom or security when people are unarmed until the state deems necessary.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"the militia" is simple. It's what's written in Article 1 Section 8.

The militia is merely an organisation that can be called up into federal service, has officers appointed by the state etc.

It is not just people who choose to get together armed. That would be dangerous and the Supreme Court has ruled this is not the case anyway.

Your militia that is "merely an organization" is the very essence of "people who choose to get together armed."

You have to remember that the militia is there to PROTECT the constitution.

Both from outside invaders and from the government.
In order to do this it needs to be organised.

What the founders didn't want were armed groups of people who would be a threat to the legitimate government and constitution. But they wanted an organised group that could take down an illegitimate government.

The balance is difficult. So they made "the militia" with the states having the power to appoint officers. The states couldn't have armies. But they had their militia, that could be called up to federal service when needed.

All this was designed to be the balance.

Having unorganised militias is not part of this plan. The "unorganised militia" at present is merely a manner to stop people demanding the right to be in the National Guard. The "unorganised militia" doesn't have state appointed leadership, so it can't actually do anything though.

The National Guard is a facet of the standing army, subject to federal control. It has nothing to do with the militia.

The National Guard is part of the militia, though can be called up to federal service. That's the definition of the militia in the constitution.

Go read the Dick Act.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The militia was essentially dead before this, because it had proven ineffective in war. So they wanted a more professional militia.

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."

 

[robertacollier]

The "unorganised militia" at present is merely a manner to stop people demanding the right to be in the National Guard. .

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"the militia" is simple. It's what's written in Article 1 Section 8.

The militia is merely an organisation that can be called up into federal service, has officers appointed by the state etc.

It is not just people who choose to get together armed. That would be dangerous and the Supreme Court has ruled this is not the case anyway.

Your militia that is "merely an organization" is the very essence of "people who choose to get together armed."

You have to remember that the militia is there to PROTECT the constitution.

Both from outside invaders and from the government.
In order to do this it needs to be organised.

What the founders didn't want were armed groups of people who would be a threat to the legitimate government and constitution. But they wanted an organised group that could take down an illegitimate government.

The balance is difficult. So they made "the militia" with the states having the power to appoint officers. The states couldn't have armies. But they had their militia, that could be called up to federal service when needed.

All this was designed to be the balance.

Having unorganised militias is not part of this plan. The "unorganised militia" at present is merely a manner to stop people demanding the right to be in the National Guard. The "unorganised militia" doesn't have state appointed leadership, so it can't actually do anything though.

The National Guard is a facet of the standing army, subject to federal control. It has nothing to do with the militia.

The National Guard is part of the militia, though can be called up to federal service. That's the definition of the militia in the constitution.

Go read the Dick Act.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The militia was essentially dead before this, because it had proven ineffective in war. So they wanted a more professional militia.

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."

That legislation fucked up the Constitution is of no consequence.

 

[The Professor]

It rally doesn't matter how you define “militia.” 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.

 

[robertacollier]

(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.

I always thought the syntax of the 2nd amendment was awkward (the seemingly misplaced comma) until this. It seems to me that the subsequent militia statute was an administrative one, passed more to address efficiency and effectiveness. It seems to me that the second part can stand independent of the first (e.g., defending yourself against a criminal, which would have nothing to do with militia). I have to wonder why the prefatory purpose clause about a militia was seen as a necessity to add, unless they were referring to an unspecified pool of people (general population). Do you know?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think it was fairly straightforward for the founders.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
  --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

• 
  
  
  • Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
    --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Bear Arms

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is the meaning of "militia" in the second amendment?

A state version of the Nat'l. Guard....

... historically the states didn't have, at that time, a national army like we do now...

... so militias were established by the states to do what a federal army would normally be responsible for protecting their territory.

What about a standing Army? An Army? An Army versus a Militia?

 

[robertacollier]

Bear Arms

Ah, thanks. I originally posted that and thought it would not take. Here is another quote:

• "The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
  -- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
  

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

OP is living in 1788.

As we all should be, when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

Really? How many people agreed with Jefferson that one generation of men has a right to bind another?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"the militia" is simple. It's what's written in Article 1 Section 8.

The militia is merely an organisation that can be called up into federal service, has officers appointed by the state etc.

It is not just people who choose to get together armed. That would be dangerous and the Supreme Court has ruled this is not the case anyway.

Your militia that is "merely an organization" is the very essence of "people who choose to get together armed."

"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."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You have to remember that the militia is there to PROTECT the constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The National Guard is a facet of the standing army, subject to federal control. It has nothing to do with the militia.

ignorant opinion is not fact.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Bear Arms

Ah, thanks. I originally posted that and thought it would not take. Here is another quote:

• "The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
  -- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

Interesting OPINIONS of an interesting man Thomas M. Cooley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Some of the first things the extralegal state committees and the Continental Congress did was disarm their neighbors, friends, and family members who did not agree with them, and they confiscated (stole) land from them. A revolutionary group based in part on protesting taxation without representation was loathe to tax the rest of the colonists, so they partial financed things by taking away lands

The founding fathers went first after other colonists guns

 

[frigidweirdo]

That legislation fucked up the Constitution is of no consequence.

How did it "fuck up" the Constitution? It's been in place for 113 years, and it's still there. Surely if it "fucked up" the Constitution someone would have taken it down by now.

In fact it's perfectly in keeping with the original view of the 2nd Amendment.

But then, I'm providing evidence and backing up my claims, and all that's coming back are words backed up with nothingness.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You have to remember that the militia is there to PROTECT the constitution.

Yeah, just as Mr Gerry was right?

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You have to remember that the militia is there to PROTECT the constitution.

Yeah, just as Mr Gerry was right?

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

you friggin weirdo, you're misunderstanding the English language again

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and in the weirdo's link:

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."

We now have a standing Army. Why didn't the militia prevent a standing Army?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You have to remember that the militia is there to PROTECT the constitution.

Yeah, just as Mr Gerry was right?

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

you friggin weirdo, you're misunderstanding the English language again

Am I? How's that then?