How do you read the Second Amendment?

[Frenchy]

In the thread http://www.pafoa.org/forum/national-11/11881-supreme-court-will-hear-d-c-guns-case.html I keep seeing the term State militia…

Am I the only one who wonders when the term came to be? Last I seen, (and this may be because I come from Canada) Militia and reserves or National Guards are not the same.

In the days of the declaration of independence, the term militia meant All able-bodied males where expected to take up arms unless they had a reason not to.

To me, the militia is not a uniformed group; it is a rag tag group of men ready to defend their rights and property.

So in the phrase… "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country” from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/argument/ or 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. (Second Amendment, ) how is it that now the government controls the “People of the militia”?

In September 1755, George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia militia, upon a frustrating and futile attempt to call up the militia to respond to a frontier Indian attack:[6]

"...he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support. And what added to his mortification was, that the laws gave him no power to correct these evils, either by enforcing discipline, or compelling the indolent and refractory to their duty" ... "The militia system was suited for only to times of peace. It provided for calling out men to repel invasion; but the powers granted for effecting it were so limited, as to be almost inoperative.[6]"

If George Washington could not control the militia of the times because they where simple citizens, NOT military, how is it, the people in today’s law can not figure out that the People are just that, the People, not a military group?
I would then read this as A well regulated Militia,{group of citizen] being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people {citizen} to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Second Amendment, )

What are your thoughts on this? Do you see the word Militia as meaning reserves or army/military or just Mr. you and me who are allowed to be armed to defend themselves, their property and if needed their country?

Here are what I came up with when I looked up the definition of Militia... Of course, there is the modern version in there also, but the "old" version is still very visible in there.





Noun
• S: (n) militia, reserves (civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army)
• S: (n) militia (the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service) "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=militia


The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary[1] citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency; without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:

Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces.
The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

The role of militia, also known as civilian military service and duty, in the United States is complex and has transformed over time.[1] The term militia can be used to describe any number of groups within the United States. Types of militia within modern US:

The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State and Federal militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia[2].
The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for the draft)[2]
Private militia forces, not necessarily illegal, which are made up of non-officially organized individuals who have formed paramilitary organizations based on their own interpretation of the concept of the militia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29

Colonial era, pre-1774
The early colonists of America considered the militia an important social structure, necessary to defend their colonies from Indian attacks. "They were a group of citizens who would be ready to fight in any emergency" All able-bodied males were expected to be members of the local militia, though in practice there were many possible exemptions to service including: conscientious objection, attendance at college and engagement in important business. The important and wealthy could avoid service, if they wanted, by paying others to go in their place. The colony of Pennsylvania did not have a militia, prior to the Revolutionary war, due to the large and pacifist Quaker population.[5]

During the French and Indian Wars, town militia formed a recruiting pool for the Provincial Forces. The legislature of the colony would authorize a certain force level for the season's campaign, based on that set recruitment quotas for each local militia. In theory, militia members could be drafted by lot if there were inadequate forces for the Provincial Regulars; however, the draft was rarely resorted to because provincial regulars were highly paid (more highly paid than their regular British Army counterparts) and rarely engaged in combat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29

[JoeWilliams]

snip
Am I the only one who wonders when the term came to be? Last I seen, (and this may be because I come from Canada) Militia and reserves or National Guards are not the same.

In the days of the declaration of independence, the term militia meant All able-bodied males where expected to take up arms unless they had a reason not to.
snip

A little known tid bit is that per US Code, that is actually the legal definition of "militia" here, also. I think it's buried in Title 10 somewhere.

In any case, it can be said with absolute, utter certainty that the founding fathers did not, and could not, have been referring to the National Guard when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

After all, there WAS no National Guard until 130 years later.

[awkx]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

US Code, Title 10, Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[awkx]

Also, Justice Scalia's remarks from Heller oral arguments:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed.

The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[deafsmithco]

Right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Thats the way I see it.

[LittleRedToyota]

yeah, i get a kick out of anti's who try to claim the 2nd amendment refers to the national guard...

ummm....the national guard didn't even exist until much, much later in history...

...morons.

[rwilson452]

Frenchy,
there is a quote that I wish I could remember correctly but it goes something like "Who are the Militia? It is everyone except a few elected officials."


Joyce Lee Malcolm wrote an excellent book on the origins of the 2nd. I think I loaned my copy out and it didn't get back and I don't remember the title. If you can find it, she does a great job of explaining how we got from English law to the 2nd.

[Frenchy]

Frenchy,
there is a quote that I wish I could remember correctly but it goes something like "Who are the Militia? It is everyone except a few elected officials."


Joyce Lee Malcolm wrote an excellent book on the origins of the 2nd. I think I loaned my copy out and it didn't get back and I don't remember the title. If you can find it, she does a great job of explaining how we got from English law to the 2nd.

GEORGE MASON
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."
George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

[TaePo]

Sounds like George Mason was a wise man. His concern was the term used as Militia might become class dependant or politically dependant etc.

The first part, though expressionary, does not change the independant part of the clause.

"Because tardiness to work and school is not productive, there shall be no speed limits imposed on the people."

The first part can actually be ignored as the second part is the result...no speed limits, yippee! The first part only explains some of the reasoning behind the law and is not law itself.

[headcase]

Frenchy,

Good post. There should, and indeed can, be no debate over the meaning of the word militia. All dictionary, scholarly opinion aside, the fact of the matter is that in the time and frame of reference of the creation of the Constitution, the militia was the citizens of the U.S. who were not in the military. The second Amendment, like every other Amendment, should be read as it is written. "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.", means exactly what it says. In that time, a well regulated militia meant that all eligible citizens were accounted for and the means to rally them was in place. Please re-read the last sentence. That is what a well regulated militia meant. Being necessary to the security of a free state, also means exactly what it says. Nations were, and are, referred to as states in the collective. "The communist state of Russia", "The fascist state of Italy", as examples. In fact, we use the term "state" to refer to a collection of sovereign nations held together under the banner,"The United States of America". The main reason we use the term State as a reference to a lessor entity than a nation, is the fact that they have come to be seen as servile to the federal government. The fact is a state may secede from the union and would then not become a sovereign nation, it would remain one, without the benefit of federal rights and protections. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", means exactly what it says. The fact that an armed militia exists, and is composed of the entire armed citizenry, is and has been enough to deter an open takeover of this free state. Knowing this welly and truly, the founding fathers first recognized our right to stand up using our words, then recognized our right to stand up using our arms. It is that simple. The only people who can find a way to debate these facts, are the people who want to induce doubt among the populace, in order to take those rights away.

~EDIT:The only debate to be had in the wording is to whether the framers were "calling" the people a well regulated militia, or if they were stating that "as one is necessary", hence the changing of comma placement between the original version and the adopted version.