Replies

That's an interesting article, though Copperud's conclusion on the original meaning of 'regulated' are at odds with those of other scholars. I guess I believe that the meaning has changed from something more like 'efficiently operating', but there is a larger issue.

Where do the 'milita' come from? They are us, and the regardless of the actual meaning of 'well-regulated', a skilled militia is 'necessary to the security of a free state.' The skills to provide an effective militia are learned prior to service in the militia, by ordinary citizens who use weapons for non-military purposes.

Take out the 'well-regulated' part of the Amendment, and grant to the gun-grabbers their preferred interpretation of 'militia' to be only some formal, government-controlled organization. The 'right to keep and bear arms' must still be an individual right in order to provide the required 'security of a free state.'

The amendment would read like this: A militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed so that they will develop skill with weapons before the militia is needed.

I am not advocating the amendment be read that way, because I think the individual right to self-defense is as key a part of that amendment as any militia aspect. As Copperud recognizes, the right to arms is pre-existing, unconditional, and broader than just that required to support the militia. I'm just saying that even if you give the gun-grabbers their interpretation of 'militia', you still get an individual right.

Why not just go straight to the primary author of the Bill of Rights, George Mason, who defined the militia this way at the Virginia convention to ratify the constitution:

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

This has been turned completely on its head, and now the fedgov wants ONLY public officials (FBI, BATF etc) to be able to possess "militia weapons".

***********************

George Mason, in case the above was not clear enough, also said:

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

And I don't think he was advocating that the government should endeavor to enslave the people in that context, as the 9th Circuit Court might choose to read it.