Scalia guns may be regulated - Page 3

**Aguila Blanca** · July 30, 2012, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

No, I believe the "well-regulated" part was that the militia be under government control. Clearly! They didn't want private armies. Your opinion may differ but I don't want private armies, either.

Your belief is incorrect. It has been well and thoroughly documented that the phrase "well regulated" as used in the 2nd Amendment meant "well trained." If you want doublespeak, how can you possibly rationalize saying in the same sentence that the militia (the people) should be "regulated" (in the sense of subject to restrictions in their arms) and also that the RKBA shall not be infringed (regulated)?

As to armies, you have it reversed. What the Founders did not want was a standing (public) army. They wanted the People -- the militia -- to be the first line of defense. The original Militia Act of 1792 specifically stated:

Quote:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

How many meanings can "well regulated" have anyway? And what modern meaning is different from "archaic meanings?" In any event, we do live in modern times, not the 18th century, although some seem to live in the 19th and early 20th century. Well regulated meant subject to civil authority.

No. "Well regulated" meant well trained and well coordinated. Just as a clock that keeps perfect time is said to be "well regulated."

MLeake · July 30, 2012, 11:45 PM

Ok, BT, tell me again how I was incorrect?

Did some want a stronger central government? Sure. Hamilton did, for one, or at least he wanted a strong central bank.

Early Congresses didn't want to have to fund a standing Army or Navy. It was nearly impossible to get six frigates built prior to the War of 1812, and several of those spent considerable war time at the pier, and/or were put in irons at the war's close.

The early history of our country was all about a limited federal government, for both philosophical and financial reasons.

If you want to argue that changing times require changing interpretations, that's one thing; historical revisionism is something else, entirely.

Hook686 · July 31, 2012, 09:57 AM

Quote:

I don't think that aligns very well with the idea that "well regulated" was intended to mandate government control over the armed citizenry.

But, I'm no Constitutional scholar, and I'm always happy to hear others' opinions.

I am no law educated individual either, but I do have an opinion. My thought is that in order for anything to be 'Regulated' a specified 'Authority' is required. Be that state, or federal, or even individual. The problem with individual is it ends up one big mob action, as individual opinion is just that, individual. That leaves state, or federal.

I would favor a federal authority was intended, as a federal government had been decided upon and a federal constitution created, which included a Bill of Rights that I view as an effort to 'Regulate' the new Federal Government.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

MLeake · July 31, 2012, 11:26 AM

The "Militia" was never Federal in those days. The Army was not militia, though many Army members probably had militia experience.

So it's a long reach to argue that they meant Federal regulation of state militia, Hook686.

BlueTrain · July 31, 2012, 11:42 AM

Regulation by federal authorities was not implied. But the man who insisted on these things, George Mason, was clear in wanting civil control of the militia. He wanted several other things like the end of slavery and term limits but he didn't get anywhere with those.

**Aguila Blanca** · July 31, 2012, 03:49 PM

The term "a well regulated militia" did NOT in any way mean or imply a militia subject to written regulations, whether they were Federal, state, county or municipal. The word "regulated" in the context of the prefatory clause to the 2nd Amendment meant "trained," "practiced," "organized," "orderly," "uniform," etc.

Brian Pfleuger · July 31, 2012, 04:18 PM

Literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutics, not just for scripture.

BlueTrain · August 2, 2012, 03:34 PM

You gentlemen are undoubtedly correct that nothing was implied in the 2nd amendment concerning actual regulations. However, contributor Blanca has kindly posted those federal regulations passed five years after the constitution to provide for such regulations. The militia act goes into some detail regarding regulation of the militia, which as has been pointed out, were state institutions and as such, already existed in some form. I have done no research on what state regulations may have existed, since the militia acts concerned themselves with the militia in relation to federal service.

It is with some regret that I am no longer of legal age to be part of the militia, although I once served in a unit that was at one time styled the "Washington Light Infantry." That was over 35 years ago.

Some of these organizations existed before the revolution and were naturally called state troops. Some more or less regular troops were stationed in small numbers along the frontier, mainly along the Allegheny Front where there was constant Indian troubles until after the Battle of the Fallen Timbers. They were called "rangers."

July 31, 2012, 11:42 AM	#55
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	Regulation by federal authorities was not implied. But the man who insisted on these things, George Mason, was clear in wanting civil control of the militia. He wanted several other things like the end of slavery and term limits but he didn't get anywhere with those. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

August 2, 2012, 03:34 PM	#58
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	You gentlemen are undoubtedly correct that nothing was implied in the 2nd amendment concerning actual regulations. However, contributor Blanca has kindly posted those federal regulations passed five years after the constitution to provide for such regulations. The militia act goes into some detail regarding regulation of the militia, which as has been pointed out, were state institutions and as such, already existed in some form. I have done no research on what state regulations may have existed, since the militia acts concerned themselves with the militia in relation to federal service. It is with some regret that I am no longer of legal age to be part of the militia, although I once served in a unit that was at one time styled the "Washington Light Infantry." That was over 35 years ago. Some of these organizations existed before the revolution and were naturally called state troops. Some more or less regular troops were stationed in small numbers along the frontier, mainly along the Allegheny Front where there was constant Indian troubles until after the Battle of the Fallen Timbers. They were called "rangers." __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

July 30, 2012, 11:45 PM	#52
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Ok, BT, tell me again how I was incorrect? Did some want a stronger central government? Sure. Hamilton did, for one, or at least he wanted a strong central bank. Early Congresses didn't want to have to fund a standing Army or Navy. It was nearly impossible to get six frigates built prior to the War of 1812, and several of those spent considerable war time at the pier, and/or were put in irons at the war's close. The early history of our country was all about a limited federal government, for both philosophical and financial reasons. If you want to argue that changing times require changing interpretations, that's one thing; historical revisionism is something else, entirely.

July 31, 2012, 11:26 AM	#54
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	The "Militia" was never Federal in those days. The Army was not militia, though many Army members probably had militia experience. So it's a long reach to argue that they meant Federal regulation of state militia, Hook686.

July 31, 2012, 03:49 PM	#56
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,460	The term "a well regulated militia" did NOT in any way mean or imply a militia subject to written regulations, whether they were Federal, state, county or municipal. The word "regulated" in the context of the prefatory clause to the 2nd Amendment meant "trained," "practiced," "organized," "orderly," "uniform," etc.

July 31, 2012, 04:18 PM	#57
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	Literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutics, not just for scripture.