The right to bear arms: does it strictly mean an armed militia only?

Question

Should this part of the Constitution be read to mean that all guns except rifles, anti-tank misiles etc used by US army be banned from private citizens' possession? (So no short-range semi-automatic one hand guns etc?) Or Is this too impractical in detail?

Some of you imply that the amendment means that free citizens should be allowed military quality firearms, so they could together fight a possible future tyrannical domestic government, as well as against a foreign invader? (Plus revolvers against bulglars.)
Forgive my bafflement, but I think we are getting close.

Answer 1

This is a hotly debated question, but what does the actual language of the amendment tell us? I'm talking about which clauses are subordinate, which are collective, etc. I'm including a link to a FASCINATING grammatical analysis of the second amendment by A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Here's the meat of the analysis:

Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions: [Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well- regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', ' ‘well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

So it's an individual right, both by intent and strict construction. The citizenry IS the militia. Now, what kind of weapons are they allowed to possess? Notice that their are NO qualifying clauses on the amendment. It simply says, "arms", which could be construed to mean ANYTHING that is commonly used as a weapon. Courts have ruled that weapons not immediately pertaining to a militia have no place in the hands of the citizenry, and after 200,000 unemployed WWI vets marched on Washington the powers that be also ruled that strictly military grade weapons are also forbidden. Hence the bizzare interpretation that guns used for hunting or target shooting are "ok" but anything else is somehow inherently evil. That's just the government trying to protect itself from us, when the whole point of the amendment is to protect us from the government! So what should we be free to own? So long as we don't hurt, threaten, or disturb anyone with them we should be free to own whatever the hell we want. You'll have trouble finding a place to drive and practice gunnery with your new tank, but if you're on a ranch way the hell out in Nowhere, MT, then why would anyone care? Oh right, the need to tell me how to live my life.

So, in summary, the right to keep and bear arms by an individual shall not be infringed. The words are clear. The intent is clear. Gun control is unconstitutional. And yes, that includes rifles, shotguns, handguns, rocket launchers, machine guns, tanks, and F-16 fighter planes.

Answer 2

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is modeled after Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 which says: "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in times of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." The framers of the Constitution wrote a lot of letters and essays which contain a lot of information as to their thoughts. When they were asked what they meant by militia, they said that it was every free citizen who was physically strong enough to carry a rifle or musket. If the National Guard had existed then, it would have been referred to "select" or "special" militia. The "well regulated Militia" in the 2nd Amendment is all of us. The Constitution does not say anything about what anyone "needs" or doesn't need. The premis that people should only have what the government thinks they "need" comes from the Communist Manifesto. Armed citizens are the first line of defense against tyranny and oppression.
When someone tries to tell you that they don't think you should have or carry a firearm, they are really saying that they don't trust you. If they don't trust you, why should you trust them? I read somewhere that the Cheyennes have a saying which says something like"He who takes my bow is not my friend. He who tells me I cannot defend myself or my family is my enemy!" Enough said!

Answer 3

"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."

The important part is " the right of the people" that says it's an individual right.

The Militia Act of 1792 required every male citizen between 18-45 to own a military rifle, bayonet, ammunition and a backpack. They trained twice a year and were not paid.
There were also Volunteer units that trained more often these became today's national guard.

Everyone is the militia. I think if you signed up for selective service you are in the militia.

Answer 4

Federal law defines 2 types of militia.

The first is the Organized Militia. By today's standards that is the Army Guard and the Air Guard.

The second is the Unorganized Militia. This consists of all able bodied males 17-45. It allows others but I have not looked beyond this code.

The types of weapons owned can still be controlled by Federal State and local code.

Answer 5

That's pretty much what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote "arms" into the constitution. This was in a time when colonial powers were deemed a great threat to a new country - Britain in particular.

Of course, if half the men in town had muskets and rifles, it would be a simple case of ordering them to gather together - then Bob's your uncle, you've got a militia unit capable of standing toe-to-toe with any other typical infantry unit of the time. With today's weapons and training standards, that's not feasible anymore. Even those paramilitary militia groups of today are obsolete by virtue of reserve forces.

Let's not forget to mention that the constitution prefers militia groups rather than standing, active duty armies. Should the regular US Military be abolished, in that case?

I seriously doubt their intentions with "arms" were based around shooting targets for fun, "defending yourself" against fellow countrymen, committing crimes (old firearms weren't terribly practical for them) or just keeping them around for the heck of it. Not sure if hunting with guns was popular back then, probably.

Naturally, people just interpret this 'right' in a manner that suits their own desires. Bah, the average American is just better off supporting any side of gun politics argument as they want to. If they make a blunder and suffer for it, it's their choice.

Answer 6

No. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that "the people" in the Second Amendment means the same thing that it means in all the other Amendments.

The text of the Second mentions "a well-regulated militia", but states that "the right of the people" (NOT the Militia, mind) "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The people.

Answer 7

Just as the other amendments refer to an individual right, so too does the 2nd Amendment. Remember, the people are the militia. The National Guard (the supposed militia) is still under control of the government, thus, is not a militia.

Answer 8

I love you. Robert D. - 1) It has been analyzed by the best legal minds in the world and has been deemed a wonder and genius work of protection for it's people. The most perfect on the planet, in fact. Look it up. 2) You are free to leave anytime you don't like what it says. It is the law of this place and any that wish to benefit from living under it. My ancestors brought and used their own money and their own sweat and gave their lives for that document. Who are YOU to change it? Who is anyone? WE, the people of the United States of America like it and want it. If you want something different, go THERE. That's like moving to someone else's house and trying to tell them how to run it. The rules were in place BEFORE you got here.

Answer 9

Some will argue that the Constitution says a "well regulated militia" which is true, but at the time the Constitution was written there were no militias. Our founding fathers meant that a "well armed citizenry" was the militia. I believe that if our founders came back today that they would be calling the people to arms.

Answer 10

Very interesting question and one that has been much debated. From reading of your history, I believe the Founders of your nation intended men to be able to bear arms so they could overthrow a tyrannical government by force if the need arose. However, having said that, the US government has so much firepower that a rebellion would be quickly crushed, unless of course, some type of guerrilla tactics were used.