6 ms·

That's not quite what it says. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall

by blagie 24d ago

That's not quite what it says. "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." 1. The reason is well-regulated militias, but the right is of the people. 2. The militia isn't a state apparatus. Indeed, the goal of the militia is to enable a rebellion if the state is no longer free. Now, here again, "well regulated" gives plenty of leeway. For example, one might argue that the following scheme fits: 1. I can have whatever arms I want, including an F35 2. The F35 lives with a militia, which is well-regulated. I can use it in trainings there. I don't think one could argue the militia could be under state control (that defeats the purpose!), but one could easily argue that it could be well-enough regulated that the current far-right extremist groups would not fit. The concept was a group of citizens under e.g. a town / city council. That's obviously not where case law went, but in an alternative reality, it very well might have.

wongarsu 24d ago
Other viable readings: 3. the militia is supposed to be under state control and its purpose is to keep the state free, aka prevent overreach of the federal government 4. The "well regulated militia" is the motivation, not the right. That makes the "well regulated" part irrelevant and there is no basis for any regulation of arms One would mean any effective state milita should have some F35, the other means you can have one personally
- vel0city 24d ago
  [dead]
exogenousdata 24d ago
"I don't think one could argue the militia could be under state control" I'm not certain this is true at all. To suggest that the Founders meant for state militias to simply be their own forces with no control by the federal government is in direct conflict with the Articles of the US Constitution. The US Constitution clearly outlines the powers of Congress to call forth & organize the militia. The US Constitution also clearly identifies the President as Command in Chief of the militia. That was further codified in a handful of acts in the 1790s, upheld by the Supreme Court in the early 1800s. The US Constitution also makes mention of the militia in the 5th Amendment. Early writing at that time suggests that the reason some of the Founders supported state militias was because they were very reluctant to allow the US to maintain a standing army. The US Industry Military Complex was never intended by the Founders. Today we identify the militia described in the US Constitution as the US Army Reserves. However that came about only after the passage of the Dick Act of 1903 (yes, that's actually the name) because President (Teddy) Roosevelt was upset at the state of the militias during the Spanish American War of 1898. And the Dick Act actually split the idea of a militia into 'organized' and 'unorganized'.
- blagie 24d ago
  Interesting comment. I am researching this in more depth as a result. Thank you. Two nits, or slight overstatements: > The US Constitution also clearly identifies the President as Command in Chief of the militia Is not quite true. He is the commander of the army and navy. For the militia, the exact text is: "of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" The second part is important. The militias are normally independent of the president. However, they can be called into service of the president. > the powers of Congress to call forth & organize the militia This is power shared with the states, in a relatively complex and ill-defined way: "reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" But yes, the goal was largely to prevent something akin to the military-industrial complex. My general read was to vest power federally, when being used in accordance with rule-of-law, but to put in power structures where the members and officers of the militia would ultimately be loyal to the people / the states. E.g. make rebellion easy if used beyond the scope of the Constitution.
MertMelfa 23d ago
Congress has been given the power to regulate the Militia. Read your militia clauses in the U.S. Constitution.
MertMelfa 23d ago
Congress has been given the power to regulate the Militia. Read your militia clauses in the U.S. Constitution.

by blagie 24d ago

wongarsu 24d ago

Other viable readings: 3. the militia is supposed to be under state control and its purpose is to keep the state free, aka prevent overreach of the federal government 4. The "well regulated militia" is the motivation, not the right. That makes the "well regulated" part irrelevant and there is no basis for any regulation of arms One would mean any effective state milita should have some F35, the other means you can have one personally

vel0city 24d ago
[dead]

exogenousdata 24d ago

"I don't think one could argue the militia could be under state control" I'm not certain this is true at all. To suggest that the Founders meant for state militias to simply be their own forces with no control by the federal government is in direct conflict with the Articles of the US Constitution. The US Constitution clearly outlines the powers of Congress to call forth & organize the militia. The US Constitution also clearly identifies the President as Command in Chief of the militia. That was further codified in a handful of acts in the 1790s, upheld by the Supreme Court in the early 1800s. The US Constitution also makes mention of the militia in the 5th Amendment. Early writing at that time suggests that the reason some of the Founders supported state militias was because they were very reluctant to allow the US to maintain a standing army. The US Industry Military Complex was never intended by the Founders. Today we identify the militia described in the US Constitution as the US Army Reserves. However that came about only after the passage of the Dick Act of 1903 (yes, that's actually the name) because President (Teddy) Roosevelt was upset at the state of the militias during the Spanish American War of 1898. And the Dick Act actually split the idea of a militia into 'organized' and 'unorganized'.

blagie 24d ago
Interesting comment. I am researching this in more depth as a result. Thank you. Two nits, or slight overstatements: > The US Constitution also clearly identifies the President as Command in Chief of the militia Is not quite true. He is the commander of the army and navy. For the militia, the exact text is: "of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" The second part is important. The militias are normally independent of the president. However, they can be called into service of the president. > the powers of Congress to call forth & organize the militia This is power shared with the states, in a relatively complex and ill-defined way: "reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" But yes, the goal was largely to prevent something akin to the military-industrial complex. My general read was to vest power federally, when being used in accordance with rule-of-law, but to put in power structures where the members and officers of the militia would ultimately be loyal to the people / the states. E.g. make rebellion easy if used beyond the scope of the Constitution.

MertMelfa 23d ago

Congress has been given the power to regulate the Militia. Read your militia clauses in the U.S. Constitution.

MertMelfa 23d ago

Congress has been given the power to regulate the Militia. Read your militia clauses in the U.S. Constitution.