The one controlled by the enforcement of laws, obviously, because a militia uncontrolled by laws is called a gang or mob. The founders were trying to create a country, not the dayimo era of feudal Japan.
Probably not the one that was dredged up for the first time in the 1970s by NRA lawyers to justify the deregulation of firearms.
I wonder how many of the other phrases that the American revolutionaries wrote have to be read as if 18th century English was a foreign language, because so far the second amendment is the only one where I’ve heard the meaning is completely different than you’d expect. 
As George Washington and the other Framers with a formal military background knew full well. Ammosexuals like to pretend that they were all amateurs in uniform like Meal Team 6 and the action-hero cosplayers who make up current “militias”.
It’s probably the institution that a good portion of the founders were most familiar with. Workhouses, ships, schools, penitentiaries were cruel insitutions, even if they appeared to run smoothly.
But what if the mob functioned like a watch-- a finely made, well tuned watch that a gentleman would be proud to place in the pocket of his finely made suit that he bought for an ounce of GOLD
I think the latter makes more sense for reasons already stated, but neither interpretation supports the theory that the purpose of the Amendment had anything to do with personal freedoms.
An individual citizen—especially a citizen at odds with the state—is clearly not a “well-regulated militia” in any sense of the term.
I’ve lost the reference, but someone menitoned on this forum that “well-regulated militia” had the reading most of us are saying it says until 2000 or 2001.
Politics played at least some role there - the plain reading was used to justify laws disarming the Black Panthers.
This is the perfect world fallacy writ large. The vast majority of domestic assaults go unreported, much less enforced. And when 40% of law enforcement officers self-report committing domestic violence, how do you think that goes? How many are charged with a crime for that by their colleagues? How many are prosecuted by the same prosecutors who count on them for testimony in other cases? How many are convicted by juries within their own community? And finally, how many of those 40% of officers look the other way when they are called to intervene when one of their fellow DV travellers beats their wife/girlfriend?
Protective orders are a lower bar to getting out of an abusive relationship than depending on a partner’s conviction in court, and one that doesn’t depend on the diligence of other domestic abusers to do their job.
And possibly even more importantly they are designed to work faster than a trial.
If your partner/spouse is prone to violence, has threatened you or your children, and has access to firearms then you probably can’t afford to wait months for a domestic violence conviction for the courts take some kind of protective action.
I volunteered at the Cook County Domestic Violence court and we could get an order filed and in place in a matter of hours. I’m sure that kept people from further harm.
I agree with that, but the second part of the amendment does:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
While there may be more than one reason for the right, the enumerated reason is to have a well armed population to pull from in order to form a militia if needed. Not every well armed person was intended to BE in the Militia, just that they COULD be.
IMO the founding fathers would be less surprised at our access to the variety of weapons we have, and more shocked at the US having the most powerful standing military in the world, something they never intended nor foresaw.
Anyway, not going to argue today what level of “shall not be infringed” various laws do or don’t run afoul of, or if it is a “personal freedom”, the courts can argue it. I am just focusing on what “well regulated” means in this context.
I don’t disagree with your statement, but it doesn’t really have a bearing on my point.
Rules and structure are PART of being a “well regulated” militia, just as much as the arms they have. That is why I have used the term “drilled” repeatedly, because that is part of it.
A militia “put in good order” would have disapline, rank hierarchy, rules of engagement, maintenance, etc.
The actual militia laws of the 1780s included things like type of musket, how much power and shot they had, a list of other gear (boots, bedrolls etc) and muster and drill requirements. Basically an outline of what you needed to be an effective militia.
That is the meaning of the phrase.
What it is not is the slam-dunk gotcha that people parrot every time there is a gun control issue. “It says ‘well regulated’ checkmate aMmOsExUaLs!!” If it was, there wouldn’t be a debate in the courts. But hey, maybe I am wrong, call up California Attorney General Rob Bonta because he could really use some legal strategy right about now.
Serious question, no snark, what happened after a protection order? Did they alert the subject of the protection order and let them know the terms and consequences of violating it? Did deputies go to the persons house and look for weapons? Would they confiscate any they found? Were they given a notice to remove any firearms from their property, either selling them or maybe giving them to a family member?
I want to know what, if any, followup occurs after a protection order.
So the Switzerland model, which includes very strict laws with severe penalties regarding the storage, transportation, and allowed uses of firearms and ammunition; licensing with training requirements; and close monitoring of personally-owned firearms including periodic checks of ammunition.
That’s a pretty terrible argument. These are the same courts that look at the 14th Amendment, where it requires “equal protection of the laws” yet somehow think it’s ok to deprive women of control over their own bodies, even if it means they might die. It’s the same courts that look at the 1A establishment clause and think it’s OK for the government to adopt Christian sect policies that are clearly forbidden.
The Constitution has been twisted and torn by those courts since the 1960s and the civil rights era with massive piles of money thrown at grooming prospective judges to become right wing assholes so that they will reverse centuries of progress.
And training, or regulation if one prefers the archaic term. Unlike in the U.S., the Swiss government doesn’t let just anyone keep powerful semi-automatic miñitary rifles at home for whatever reason they like. The weapons are locked away in anticipation of a very specific purpose, and those to whom they’re entrusted are drilled in their use and maintenance.
Similarly, all of the “responsible gun owners” I’ve met in the U.S. are military veterans or have been members of the National Guard. They take weapons seriously and don’t see them as collectibles or props in their fantasies. As I’ve said before, I saw a couple of the ones I know almost give an ammosexual a beatdown after they caught him waving his weapon around at the range playing action hero.
they’re people too, with a range of opinions and views. i have in my own family ex service members who believe things like “the shadow people might take over the government so we need guns to protect us.”
there’s also a huge issue with domestic violence and suicide for veterans – especially those experiencing ptsd.
re: “well regulated” … i cannot believe people are willing to cling to an, at best, ambiguous text, to defend a supposed right to ongoing, daily bloodshed. this “interpretation” is the number of one cause death for children – so sure. let’s next talk about where the comma goes.
it’s all insane.
I’m sure you’re right. My point is that those gun owners I’ve personally encountered who didn’t have military training were uniformly not responsible ones. I’m sure there are exceptions to that, but I have yet to see one myself. This is all anecdotal observation on my part.
i cannot believe people are willing to cling to an, at best, ambiguous text, to defend a supposed right to ongoing, daily bloodshed. this “interpretation” is the number of one
I can believe it, unfortunately. Almost 30 years on the Internet has confirmed that some people’s identities are so unhealthily wrapped up in their weapons that they’ll destroy their reputations in the community by rehashing the same old stale, discredited arguments and talking points (many of them courtesy of a right-wing industry lobbying organisation so corrupt that even Oliver North couldn’t stand it).
that’s fair. there are also probably some old school hunters out there who take their responsibilities seriously.
( noting that, at this point, one of those responsibilities is advocating for real and serious gun reform. a person literally cannot be a responsible gun owner if they aren’t out there advocating for gun control. )
No doubt, especially the kind of hunter who shoots for food rather than sport. As with soldiers, they respect the tools their survival depends upon – in stark contrast to the gun owners who bend themselves into pretzels trying to justify a hobby involving items that can kill and maim humans.
Thank you. That was also the effective view of the NRA before it was taken over in a 1977 coup by a racist murderer, prior to being transformed into an industry lobby group and arm of the GOP.
It also established the chain of command all the way up to command in chief and granted them power to issue orders. Orders by senior officers effectively became militia law.
Frankly, if the Constitution doesn’t allow us to keep unstable people from having weapons, then maybe we should go back to the old way - mandatory enrollment in a state militia for all adults except those incapable or unwilling to bear arms - the same exemptions to mandatory militia service New York and Massachusetts had in the 1780s.
Then we can simply order them to store their weapons in the armory and dishonorably discharge those who can’t control themselves - thus removing their right to possess firearms.
One idea that comes around every so often (at least here on the BBS) is that the constitutional right to bear arms should only apply to firearms that existed when the constitution was drafted
