Here’s the second amendment to the United States Constitution:
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.
Most of the attention that this amendment has received has been on the latter portion of the amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” but I’d like to focus on the opening clauses of the amendment.
What is the militia? What does it mean for a militia to be well-regulated? Is a well-regulated militia still necessity for our security?
It’s very clear that the founders were not referring to a standing, professional army when they wrote about the militia. From Federalist 24 (written by Alexander Hamilton):
Previous to the Revolution, and ever since the peace, there has been a constant necessity for keeping small garrisons on our Western frontier. No person can doubt that these will continue to be indispensable, if it should only be against the ravages and depredations of the Indians. These garrisons must either be furnished by occasional detachments from the militia, or by permanent corps in the pay of the government.
From Federalist 28 (Hamilton):
Suppose the State of New York had been inclined to re-establish her lost jurisdiction over the inhabitants of Vermont, could she have hoped for success in such an enterprise from the efforts of the militia alone? Would she not have been compelled to raise and to maintain a more regular force for the execution of her design?
From Federalist 29 (Hamilton):
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions.
From Federalist 46 (written by James Madison):
The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
In every case the term militia is used as an alternative to (and frequently in opposition to) a standing, professional army. So who is the militia? Here’s what my state’s constitution has to say on the subject (Illinois Constitution, Article XII, Section 1):
The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons
residing in the State except those exempted by law.
That is the common understanding of the militia. It’s you. It’s me. It’s everybody in the country.
What does it mean for the militia to be well-regulated? Here’s what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1781 in his Notes on the State of Virginia. From Query IX:
“Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. …. In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. …. The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”
This gives us three components for regulation: commitment, organization, and preparedness.
Commitment means that you’re aware of what your responsibility is and you have formed the necessary mental state to live up to that responsibility. Stryker has recently written two excellent posts on commitment here and here.
Some agree with nearly everything the Bush Administration has done in the last four years. Some can’t find anything that the Administration has done that they agree with. But friends and foes of the Administration really must agree that Mr. Bush has failed to mobilize the American people in this struggle. When he urged us to go back to our daily routines he may have been right on the facts but he was terribly wrong on the atmospherics, on the feel of it. It takes the office of the President to really communicate the level of commitment that will be required. It may have been difficult to communicate and inspire the necessary level of commitment three years ago. It will be significantly more difficult now.
What about organization? In every state in the Union the governor has a special responsibility for the militia: the governor is the commander-in-chief of the militia of his state. When was the last time you heard the governor of your state invoking his powers and actually organizing the militia? In my state the answer is never. The governors have failed miserably and completely at living up to their responsibilities. They need help. Write; phone; email. Let’s get something going.
In our Republic the militia is largely self-organizing and we have the greatest organizational tool in the history of humankind at our disposal—the Internet. So let’s begin to discuss this. Talk about it. Organize.
The final quality of the well-regulated militia is preparedness. Are we prepared? I don’t see it.
I’m not sure I know what we need to do to get prepared. Campaigns like the “See something; say something” campaign I’ve heard about on New York mass transit are a start.
Perhaps one of the things we need to do is to cultivate a quality that’s at the heart of the martial arts: mindfulness. When you’re in a mindful state you’re acting and aware that you’re acting not lost in the activity. Your’re undistracted—completely focussed on the task at hand. And you are non-judgmental.
What else can we do to heighten our level of preparedness?
Is all of this ridiculous? We have the finest professional military in the world. What’s the relevance of the militia of the whole people in the 21st century? Is it really necessary to our security?
This post began its life as a preliminary response to the 9/11 Commission’s Report. On September 11, 2001 four planes were hijacked. Three struck their targets. One did not reach its target: Flight 93. It wasn’t the federal government or the state government or the professional military that prevented Flight 93 from striking that target whatever it was. On Flight 93 the militia of the people, equipt with the necessary information, achieved the necessary commitment, organized itself, and demonstrated the necessary preparedness by acting. Any questions?
As a former English major, the 2nd amendment has always driven me nuts. Grammatically, it’s a mess. Both sides have a case in this argument; it’s all dependent on whether the first part is a dependent clause or an independent clause. It’s probably the most annoying part of the constitution.
Personally speaking, I think you’re right. But the Constitution doesn’t make it perfectly clear. The Founding Fathers did an amazing job — it’s stood up with only moderate tweaking for over 200 years. But they weren’t perfect, and the 2nd Amendment is one of their more annoying areas of vagueness.
J.
I can’t understand the import of the previous comment. If I said, “The necessity of arriving on train being one of our primary concerns, we had better take the train”, wouldn’t I be being perfectly clear? Because of this fact, we had better do this.
BECAUSE a well-regulated militia is necessary, citizens must have the right to keep and bear arms. Now, when a provision of law is being interpreted, it seems to me almost beyond argument that the REASONS why you have drafted the position are explanatory only and do not affect the provision itself. They function as a sort of introductory matter, like the first sentences of the Declaration of Independence. If they illuminate, fine. But even if they were UNTRUE, the provision would still stand. If the Second Amendment read, “Guns being the staple of our citizenry’s diet, the right to keep and bear arms…”
It seems to me that the issue of militia is a very interesting one and important legally in addressing what our present day courts might be likely to think, but not very important in determining the genuine force and meaning of the amendment, at least not using the “original meaning” jurisprudence of our tradition and of Justices Scalia and Thomas.
Posted by: Jay Tea at July 28, 2004 02:37 AM
“it’s all dependent on whether the first part is a dependent clause or an independent clause. ”
The usage of “Being” is adverbial.
There is no whether. Something is or is not a dependent clause. In this case the first part IS a dependent clause and the main thought of the sentence is
“the peoples right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Ponder the pharase ‘security of a free state”. No where else in the Constitution does the term “state” refer to the federal government. The President is Commander and Chief of the army, which is not part of the “state” but rather the federal government.
It seems obvious that militia is not the army, or the “national guard” which has been federalized from time to time (like now).
Meanwhile, the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” does not have odd parsing. The state is the “state”, the people are the “people”.
QED the proof is left to the student
And, for further clarification or muddying of the waters (depending upon how you look at it), here is the federal definition of militia:
U.S. code – Title 10, Section 311:
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
1 – The 2nd amendment is VERY IMPORTANT.
PROOF?
Whereas free speech, assembly, petitioning the gov’t are all LUMPED TOGETHER in the 1st Amendment, the RUGHT TO BEAR ARMS gets its own.
2 – The 2nd Amendment SIMPLY means that BECUASE an armed public is a bulwark against attacks on the nation and PROMOTES SECURTIY, the federal government will not infringe on the right of people to own guns.
If every man and woman in the USA were armed criminals and terrorists would be LESS likely to commit crimes that require guns (or arms less powerful thasn guns)to achieve tactical superiority, and hence these crimes would decrease.
IN FACT: statistics compliled by the UN and writtine up in a study by Cambrdgire University porve that restrictive gun laws and relatively lower gun ownership rates do not decrease crime, violence, or gun crime. Brasil has a hiugher gun crime rate and murder rate than the USA and has 1/5th the gyun ownershiop on a per capita basis.
Israel and Switzerland have higer gun ownership rates than the USa and lowere gun crime rates.
So one MUST ASK: if restrictive gun laws do not lower gun crime WHY SUPPORT THEM?!?!?!?
There is NO REASON TO HAVE THEM; if anything they INCREASE the likelihood of larger scale attacks (terrorist attacks by Jihado-terrorists or nuts going “postal” like in Columbine) because the perps feel it is LESS LIKELY that anyone they encounter will fight back. There is some statistical evidence to suppport this, too.
Therefore, as part of a Homeland Security pragram WE SHOULD (1) REQUIRE THAT EVERY CITIZEN BE TRAINED IN THE USE OF GUNS, and we should (2) train and arm more people (with guns or at least stun-guns, or mace): truckdrivers; municpal busdrivers; doormen; and sanitationmen. These professionals are out-and-about all the time, and wouild make a valuable additon to our cops – iof they were trained and armed.
“A well regulated militia….”
“Regulated”? I think that means some sort of (for lack of a better word) “control”.
“A well regulated militia” doesn’t mean Ted Kaczynski and Osamawannabejr can go out and buy an AK47 simply because they are citizens.
Danny, think a bit about what you’ve suggested here.
The simple fact of life is this: We haven’t yet been able to adequately train an Iraqi army nor keep the nuts out of their police force OR the US postal system for that matter.
Come to think of it haven’t our troops been confiscating guns from citizens in Iraq? Are you suggesting we should arm all of the citizens of Iraq to help us take down the terrorists?
Are you saying we should allow hormonally unbalanced highschool kids wander around with guns in order to avoid another Columbine? Do you think Harris and Klebold would have cared that they could have been shot?
Do you really think terrorists are disuaded at the thought of being injured while carrying out suicide missions?
What I’m really wondering is who’s gonna pay for all this arming and training you suggest?
So one MUST ASK: if restrictive gun laws do not lower gun crime WHY SUPPORT THEM?!?!?!?
I suspect you got those stats from the NRA. They are irrelavant. Brazil does not have the law enforcement resources of the US. What Brazil does have is a significantly higher poverty rate which we know has a direct correlation to crime rate – gun or otherwise.
I’d check the stats on Israel & Switzerland’s overall crime rates to find out why their gun crime rate is so low. Numbers can be spun any which way.
Personally, I’m not worried about gun crime. I’m worried about my kid ending dead because his friend’s careless parent buys into the gun lobby propaganda you are trying to sell here.
Fine, we can make laws that will put careless people in jail or even take their ownership rights away. What about my dead kid? What are HIS rights? What are mine as his mother? To sue for wrongful death? Gee thanks, I feel much better.
Do I not have the right to protect my child from careless gun owners? If so, how do you suggest we go about doing that?
I find it difficult to imagine, that in all their wisdom, our forefathers meant to suggest gun ownership trumps the right to life.
The militia was the effective security of each state against a federal standing army (and no doubt a reassurance when joining the Union). That’s how it reads to me. To paraphrase…
To these (standing armies…dangerous to liberty) would be opposed a militia (the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed), citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments (PLURAL) possessing their affections and confidence (state governments) …to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions (which have multiplied mightily over the years).
What say ye?
Could it be that the founding fathers recognized that a professional army may not necessarily be a competent army?
The most decisive battle of the American Revolution was the battle of Saratoga in New York. Wasn’t that won by the New England militia?
Would there BE a United States of America had there not been any militia?
The militia was definitely necessary in the time of the Revolution. gEye’s questions are basically, how much have times changed?
The Founders might have wanted the several states to be able to fight the federal government, but all 50 state militias together right now couldn’t realistically take on the U.S. Army. In addition, we had experience with states fighting the federal government from 1861-65. The federal government won, and half a million Americans died in the process.
Next, if Madison was accurate in Federalist 46, and a sustainable professional army is 1% of the total population, that might have only been 30,000 in his day, but it would be a good 3 million today (which is pretty close to what we actually have, totalling all the services, IIRC).
Also, as a former English major as well, I have to agree with Jay Tea about the 2nd Amendment, but not because it’s ambiguous what kind of clause the first is, but *because* it’s unambiguously a dependent clause. Yet the Founders themselves would not have permitted private citizens to own cannons, and even if they did, I find it difficult to argue that they would allow people to own tanks, Apaches, or ICBM’s today.
Times have changed. There is simply no way America could be as secure today if all we had to work with were the National Guard and equivalent state militias. Large-scale defense projects can only be seriously undertaken by an organized, professional, centrally funded army.
What bugs me a lot about the constitution, even despite the fact that I also consider this one of the beauties of the document that has allowed it to be so alive and flexible after 220+ years, is that it fails to delineate exactly what these rights it guarantees are supposed to mean. All of these rights are posited as inalienable and yet not absolute; the “pursuit of happiness,” for example, is generally understood as the pursuit of material comforts, but the Founders certainly understood that some taxes would be necessary and that property could be taken by the state, albeit of course with just compensation, via eminent domain. The right to free speech does not entail an unlimited right to say anything, anytime, anywhere (i.e., incitement to riot, divulging of official secrets, etc.). The right to peaceful assembly doesn’t mean that you can bring a hundred thousand people into a town square with no warning (town authorities may need to provide extra police protection, or at least issue a traffic advisory). Likewise, the “right to bear arms” doesn’t inherently guarantee one the right to own a Stinger missile or a minigun, no matter if one could afford one or not.
I suspect that Gramarye is the victim of PC revisionist history. It is my understanding that private ownership of cannon was implicitly blessed by the Founders. (The Constitution authorizes Congress to issue “letters of marque” in section 8. This refers to “privateers”, private raiding vessels. Exactly what are private raiding vessels supposed to have used to take over other vessels, harsh language? All the rest were armed with cannon.)
I further suspect that Gramarye’s sources have been “sanitized” because she does not know that the colorful Kentucky abolitionist, Cassius Clay, once repelled an angry mob with his cannon.
Going back to my original post, the meaning of the militia is clear both from Federalist, the U. S. Code (thanks for the citation), and various state constitutions: it’s us. The citizenry is the militia. My main focus was on this question: what does it mean to be well-regulated? I don’t think we are. And I think it’s important.
I’ve always wanted to say this, so here goes:
The 2nd Amendment clearly indicates two things:
1. The militia should be well-regulated.
2. The people shall be allowed to be armed.
With very few exceptions, all Americans agree that some modern arms (undreamed-of in 1787) are so destructive that good regulation demands that they be kept locked up in the armory and out of private hands. These include crew-served weapons and such individual weapons as automatic rifles, grenades, antitank rockets, and antiaircraft missiles.
With very few exceptions, all Americans agree that some arms should be freely available to virtually any law-abiding, competant adult. These include skeet guns and deer rifles.
The range of weapons about which we disagree is really very narrow: chiefly handguns and certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
I submit that where in this range you draw the line on what arms are available to the general public is a matter of prudence and good judgment, in other words good regulation. It should not be a 2nd Amendment issue.
to answer the question of whether the “militia” is well regulated or not, i’d have to say that it is not.
the 2nd ammendment is open to a variety of interpretations, whether they coincide with my own or not does not matter. yet the only lear and defining point in this well-regulated militia.
if the constitution was supposed to protect the rights and liberties of the american peple, would it not mean to also protect their lives? With gun-crime as high as it is, can you truly say that there is no need for reform?
The “founding fathers” did not forse what this would possibly create, the turmoil over interpretations, the high rate of crime, etc.
Regulations are bypassed easily nowadays, and society as a whole does not truly propose a new course of action to try and reduce crime rates. Any law can be broken, fear of punishment resides but is dimmed.
Also, the term militia can be interpreted in many ways. Would not it be feasible to claim that the militia, which was to be made of the citizens of states, and to protect the people, be known as the police today? It is not impossible to se that the claims of a need for a militia are also the needs for a true police-force, one run by the citizens of the state, an controlled by governors.
To think that nowadays citizens have access to weaponry that surpasses that of the police force is aphauling. I havent had any serious threat to my own life, sure, but the fact of thematter still remains. Gun-crime is an issue taht cannot be avoided, and the claims of an ammendment do not wholly coincide with its principles.
I claim no need to abolish it(as you cant abolish it) but to clarify it. It is a simple matter that mny do not realize, and it shows the ignorance of many when stating that there should be no regulations.
Contrary to some uninformed comments above, the function of the militia is well defined
in the US Constitution – see Article 1 Section 8 on the powers of Congress quoted below.
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
Weapons suitable for the missions of the militia (“execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”) are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Cleary standard weapons for infantry are protected – like SAWs and M-16s.
The Constitution further defines what “well regulated” means in the same section.
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing
such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving
to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of
training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Further quoting Article 1 Section 8…
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;”
A Letter of Marque is a hunting license for an armed ship of war, which is presumably
in existance prior to the granting of the letter – so the Founders expressly
contemplated private ownership of heavy weapons such as armed frigates. This
is consistent with actual historical practice.
Notwithstanding the clearly dubious logic of certain legislatures and judges
who would disarm the people, the Founders understood the existance of an
armed populace as a force to protect the lives and rights of the people.
“[B]ut if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of
any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people,
while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in
discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 29
“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason
If you can afford a minigun and an anti-tank battery buy one. That’s gun control. What’s affordable to you.
Everyone seems to overlook the fact that in the contemporary language of that time “Well-Regulated” was more likely a statement of how well ARMED the militia was. Read any description of a Naval Vessel written in that time frame and it will say something like “She is regulated with X number of 5 pound cannon…”. Just a little bit of Naval history that really changes the sound. A well- armed militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
Sorry knuckledragger, you’re wrong about well regulated.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word “regulate,” which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton’s words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
— The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Surely the article and the posts point to the fact that the Governor of each state is responsible for (establishing and maintaining) a well regulated militia and failure to do so – as evidenced by the periodic random slaughter by ‘unregulated’ individuals opens the way for all Governors to be sued by the victims and relatives.
Regulation which disciplines gun owners at least increases the chances of identifying risky operators. I would further argue that the “right to bear arms” is conditional rather than inalienable.
Who knows, perhaps the NRA could be enlisted to manage regulation in exchange for a subscription fee.