"
The word 'regulated' as used in the Second Amendment did NOT refer to government regulation. In the vernacular of our founding fathers, it meant 'capable'...it meant 'able'...well-trained."
I've been going over this one for a while. Let me summarize what I have developed over several posts along with some new comments, because I think there is a misunderstanding of some of what I imply.
1. It does refer to government regulation because that right of regulation was established in
Article 1, Section 8 of the already-ratified constitution. The "right of regulation" given to the government was an established fact by the time the 2nd Amendment was passed in 1790.
2. The "right of regulation" given to the federal government is NOT a right to regulate
individual gun ownership. It is instead a right to regulate the militia, whose existence is "necessary to the security of a free state." And the distinction between these two rights is made evident by the comma that separates the two. I am almost ready to maintain that the comma in the 2nd Amendment between "free state" and "the right of the people" may be the most important punctuation mark in the entire Constitution.
3. The "right of regulation" given to the federal government over the militia in the 2nd Amendment does NOT imply that the term "militia" as used in common parlance among Americans of the 1790's refers to something other than the "able bodied citizenry." It refers to the fact that when brought together in the common defense, the federal government can regulate or "discipline" (to use the term in Article 1, Section 8) or "direct" (from Hamilton's writings in the
Federalist Papers) the militia. The principal desire of the founders here was not to
restrict the latitude of autonomous action of the militia in constituting itself (although they did restrict the
proportion of certain types of units, such as artillery, within the whole body of a regiment in the
Militia Act of 1792 [Section IV:
. . . not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry. . . ]), but rather to ensure "uniformity," which was the principal concern of the founders regarding the militia. To quote Hamilton from
Federalist #29 (paragraph 2, underline emphasis mine):
"
. . . This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. . . ."
You may note that Hamilton is speaking of the militia as a collective unit, not to the individuals who constitute it as a body, which reinforces what I wrote above about the 2nd Amendment NOT conferring upon the federal government the right to regulate individual arms ownership. And also that the term "regulation" implies "direction [by] the national authority," which does show that "regulation" means more than just efficiency, it refers to "direction," or management.
4. When the founders used the term "regulation" as it applied to government oversight or direction, they envisioned regulation by legislative action, not by regulatory agencies in the way in which we view government regulation today. The Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795 are examples of what the framers had in mind as the proper mode of "regulation." And I will add here that I have already stated in an earlier post that even though the National Firearms Act establishes the
fact of federal government regulation of individual arms ownership, that those who argue that this goes beyond the intent of the framers have a logical case to put forth for the reason I give in this point.
5. If the word "regulated" in the 2nd Amendment referred ONLY to efficiency, then the adjective
well placed immediately before it becomes redundant. But as I stated above "regulation" in the intent of the framers referred to "disciplining" (Art. 1, Sec. 8) or "direction" (Federalist #29), which means much more than "efficiency." It is the insertion of the adjective to modify the term as "
well regulated" that changes its meaning from simply "disciplined" or "directed" to "efficiently disciplined" or "efficiently directed."
Follow-up to my previous post.
I seem to have overlooked the fact that you used the words "capable," "able," and "well-trained" in your post to me and I addressed the use of the term "efficiency" in my response.
Several others who responded before you used the term "efficient" of "efficiency" and I seem to have addressed them more directly than I did you. But I believe the meaning of the word "regulated" is still as I stated it in my previous post.
Sorry if I was not more to the point in addressing the direct language you used.