The militia of the Constitution was to be well organized, well armed and well trained

[Joe Steel]

No, it is merely a statement of principle. The declarative clause has never been interpreted to command any action or been held to inform on any level about any obligation to erect any structure of militia organization. Since it has never been looked to for instruction it can hardly be argued that it demands such a structure be erected.

In fact, the Second Amendment is in its entirety a statement of principle. The People recognized the need for an army of common citizens as the best defense of their democracy and with the Second Amendment declared for themselves the right to army of common citizens and controlled by the People.

[Nukeman]

In fact, the Second Amendment is in its entirety a statement of principle. The People recognized the need for an army of common citizens as the best defense of their democracy and with the Second Amendment declared for themselves the right to army of common citizens and controlled by the People.

You know, I think there is a snowball being thrown in hell right now. I completely agree with your post in this thread. Way to go joe!!!!

[Jagger]

The People recognized the need for an army of common citizens as the best defense of their democracy and with the Second Amendment declared for themselves the right to army of common citizens and controlled by the People.

The Second Amendment says nothing about an army of common citizens. It says a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

Under Article One Section Eight, Congress was granted exclusive power to organize, arm and discipline the militia. The Anti-Federalists pointed out that Congress could destroy the militia by merely neglecting it or running it into the ground. Therefore, it was deemed necessary to grant the states concurrent power with Congress to provide for the militia, because a well regulated militia was believed to be necessary for the security of a free state, and they didn't trust Congress with exclusive power to provide for the militia.

[Rick OShea]

It was necessary to grant the states the same power that Congress had under Article One Section Eight to provide for the militia. Otherwise Congress could destroy the militia by merely neglecting it.

So you have zero understanding of federal supremacy and preemption?

You keep spouting these theories about what the states "must have" and how the states and the federal government share militia powers but you can not cite one example of these theories in practice. Again and again, for 190 years, federal powers supersede state powers and you keep telling us that the opposite is true, that states retain broad controls and direction over their militias (and that the 2ndA protects that "right").

Jagger, if you are correct you should be able to demonstrate the breadth of authority the states retain over their militia and the means, express or implied, by which state power has been preserved by claiming 2nd Amendment protection.

In the absence of such an explanation you lose.

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Why would Congress declare that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the states, and then withhold the power to provide for a militia from the states?

Wow, I'm impressed.

I've never witnessed such a juvenile evasion of debate in print before.

Do you become invisible when you close your eyes?

Your fit, like most childish outbursts makes no sense.

Congress passed the Militia Act in 1792 fulfilling its role in organizing the state militias into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies as the Governors and state legislatures would direct and prescribing commonality of arms and discipline for the militia. It was the states that were derelict in their duties not following the directives of Congress and keeping up their side of the equation.

Problem is, when the states did fight the feds the cases usually centered on governors ignoring or disobeying direct orders by Congress of the President. Those cases ended badly for the states and subsequently after quite a few slap-downs, state militia powers have been extinguished.

You need to find another argument because this horse you are trying to ride is a rotten corpse.

[Hobbit]

But...we can't. Theres no way the people of the US could overthrow the government militia-style. We'd have to use the "pen vs. the sword".

Which is why I think the government needs to be reigned in on 'gun control.' The Second Amendment was intended to be our last line of defense against tyranny, and those who proclaim themselves to not be tyrants continue to defy the will of the people while slowly revoking our right to defend ourselves.

The Second Amendment says nothing about an army of common citizens. It says a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

mi·li·tia Listen to the pronunciation of militia
Pronunciation:
\mə-ˈli-shə\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date:
1625

1: a body of citizens organized for military service

What was that? Was that the sound of your sh-- totally being ruined by the fact that a militia is an army of common citizens?

[Joe Steel]

The Second Amendment says nothing about an army of common citizens. It says a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

A militia is an army of common citizens.

[Silver]

no, never heard of the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms....do you have link?

Amendment II

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.

Unless you were being facetious .....


These are the words that give all of us the right to own guns....WE ARE THE PEOPLE....unless and until the SCOTUS re-defines "the people" to mean something other than it means in plain English....and it will have to apply to "THE PEOPLE" as its mentioned in other sections of the Constitution....

[Yurt]

Amendment II

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.

Unless you were being facetious .....


These are the words that give all of us the right to own guns....WE ARE THE PEOPLE....unless and until the SCOTUS re-defines "the people" to mean something other than it means in plain English....and it will have to apply to "THE PEOPLE" as its mentioned in other sections of the Constitution....

yep

[avatar4321]

But...we can't. Theres no way the people of the US could overthrow the government militia-style. We'd have to use the "pen vs. the sword".

Sure we could if we were well planned and had significant defections.

[DragonStryk72]

The militia of the Constitution was to be well organized, well armed and well trained according to a system of military discipline. If Congress had exclusive authority to provide for the militia, it might neglect the militia and thereby disarm the states. Therefore, it was necessary to grant the states power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglected to do so. The first clause of the Second Amendment acknowledges that a state must have a well regulated militia for security. The second clause should be interpreted to grant the states the power to provide for the militia, if Congress neglects to do so. Otherwise, the states would be at the mercy of Congress.

you miss one crutial point here: Militias were supplied by the people joining them. No, seriously, that was the practice, that's why we have the term "regulars" to refer to the active duty army of the time. Joining a militia meant that you had to provide much, if not all, of your own gear, and thus, the need for personal weapons, unlike Army soldiers, whose weapons were usually provided for them.

So, in order for a militia to be well-maintained and well-regulated, you would need either a permanent tax (given this is what we were fighting against, I don't see it happening) on all state residents, or allow the people to carry their own arms to supply to the militia in the time of need, thus the right to keep and bear arms.

However, we do need to bring back militias, they are sorely needed these days to remind the federal branch that they are not the final word.

[DragonStryk72]

Sure we could if we were well planned and had significant defections.

Actually, it wouldn't be that hard, honestly. the second the states refuse to send in any more tax money, the federal branch has nothing left, while you meanwhile have an armed populace that they would need large amounts of military power to oppose, just to try and cover the ground needed.

So, what you have is a federal branch with massive, massive overages, and now no income. At the same time, they can't even depend on their own military, since it is made of the same people who are against, and now, they're not getting paid at all.

[Joe Steel]

Amendment II

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.

Unless you were being facetious .....


These are the words that give all of us the right to own guns....WE ARE THE PEOPLE....unless and until the SCOTUS re-defines "the people" to mean something other than it means in plain English....and it will have to apply to "THE PEOPLE" as its mentioned in other sections of the Constitution....

"People" is a collective noun used in the Constitution to refer to the citizenry as sovereign. A mere group of persons acting or considered as other than the sovereign are not the People.

[Jagger]

So you have zero understanding of federal supremacy and preemption?

What was the understanding in 1789 with regard to whether, under the U. S. Constitution, the states had power to provide for arming organizing and disciplining the militia?

[Little-Acorn]

In fact, the Second Amendment is in its entirety a statement of principle. The People recognized the need for an army of common citizens as the best defense of their democracy and with the Second Amendment declared for themselves the right to army of common citizens and controlled by the People.

Joe Steel is quite correct, though not entirely complete. The 2nd is indeed a statement of principle - the idea that an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom, and that ordinary people must retain their right to arms themselves as they see fit.

But a statement of principle, isn't the only thing it is. It's also a clear and firm command: Government is forbidden to take away or restrict ordinary people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons. Period. And if various intrusive governments and their advocates (like Jagger) don't like it, too bad.

Of course, those government and their advocates (again like Jagger) constantly try to bend and twist the clear meaning of the amendment, to pretend it somehow doesn't mean what it says. It's entertaining to watch them bend themselves into pretzel shapes, digging and digging to find the oddest meanings of a few isolated phrases outside the Constitution, while ignoring the reams of clear statements by the vast majority of the Framers that contradict his hoped-for agenda.

Sorry, jaggie. Since an armed populace is necessary, govt can't take away or restrict ordinary people's guns. All your talk and rote recitation changes neither the text nor the clear meaning of the 2nd amendment. It's comical to see you screw your blinders on tighter and tighter, and try to ignore everybody laughing at you... especially those who actually understand English and the intentions of those who wrote it.

[Rick OShea]

What was the understanding in 1789 with regard to whether, under the U. S. Constitution, the states had power to provide for arming organizing and disciplining the militia?

I highly recommend you read the militia clause debate recorded in Elliot's Debates, Volume 5, it begins on page 464 and is continued; 465, 466, 467.

I would also recommend reading TO KEEP AND BEAR THEIR PRIVATE ARMS: THE ADOPTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, 1787-1791 Northern Kentucky Law Review (10 N. Ky. L. Rev. 13-39 (1982)) webpublished HERE The author is the pre-eminent 2nd Amendment scholar in the USA; he wrote the Heller amicus submitted on behalf of Vice President Cheney, 55 Senators and 250 Members of Congress LINK (258kb PDF).

Federal preemption of state militia powers has been a long process and much of it begins with the Militia Act of 1792. The mere direction that the militia shall be comprised of, "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years . . . " was an ironclad rule for the states. Following the Dred Scott decision Massachusetts abolitionists wanted to change state militia law to allow free blacks to enroll in the militia. Guess what, the state was barred from that action because the national government had legislated on the subject.

It matters little what the 1789 understanding was because the entire federal / state dynamic, especially with regards to the militia was shredded after the Civil War. Congress forcefully disbanded the southern state militias (because they were the enforcers of the Black Codes in violation of the 14th Amendment) and would not permit their reconstitution for many years. Congress forced the southern states to rewrite their constitutions before being readmitted to the Union to eliminate discriminatory language such as securing the right to arms for only "free white citizens."

If you are interested, these are the SCOTUS decisions deemed instructional on the question of federal vs state militia control.

The 2ndA is absent from discussion in these cases which makes no sense if your theory was correct. That there is no discussion of the 2nd proves that the 2ndA has zero action in the sphere of militia powers, either state or federal.

Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820).
Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827).
Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1917)
Perpich v. Dep't of Defense, 496 U.S. (1990)