THE most significant flaw in the militia-only interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is...

federal law enforcement agents of a civilian nature

FBI
CIA
NSA
DEA
USMS
Postal Inspectors
IRS-CID
Railroad retirement fund special agents
Game Wardens
Poultry Inspectors
TSA
AIr Marshalls
Secret Service
FPS(Federal Protective service)
Probation officers
Court Bailiffs
ICE
FDA-Dept of Criminal investigations
DOE-OIG

now those were the ones I personally dealt with when I was a DOJ attorney

here are the rest


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/03/robert-farago/full-list-of-armed-federal-agencies/

 

No.
"The People" as in;
The Right of "The People" to keep and bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

Refers to "The People otherwise it would read;

A well regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free State.
The Military / Militia shall be authorized to bear Arms for the General Defense of The People.

 

So the people couldn't serve in the militia? Then who did?

 

Keeping and bearing arms at the time the Constitution was written had a FAR wider meaning than just military. I gave you the references to show that. Keeping and bearing arms at the time of the Constitution was for defense of the individual and had been that way in England since at least the 1600's.

Have you *actually* read Fed Paper 29:

""But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. " (bolding mine, upside)

Fed Paper 29 *does* speak to there being an organized militia, trained so as to be well-regulated:
from Fed Paper 29: "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, 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,"

Since the Federalist Papers were addressed to the role of the FEDERAL government, it was to be the Federal government that would equip the organized militia.

For the *rest* of the people at large, i.e. the unorganized militia, it was *still* the responsibility of the federal government to see that the people at large are properly armed and equipped. The 2nd Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights for just that reason. To insure that the people at large would be properly armed and equipped!

 

The Founding Fathers saw fit to create the 2nd Amendment to allow those outside of the militia to be armed, just as was mentioned in Fed Paper 29.

 

Read the Militia Act of 1792 to understand how Congress actually did organize the militia. How consistent is it with Hamilton's ideas? I don't think it distinguishes between a select militia composed of a small group of very well trained people and another militia composed of ordinary, untrained people. Hamilton, apparently, didn't think much of the militia, but ultimately it wasn't up to him how the militia would be organized. He was the Secretary of the Treasury who was killed in a duel with the vice president.

"Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark, and would be at all times equal to the national defense. This doctrine, in substance, had like to have lost us our independence. It cost millions to the United States that might have been saved. The facts which, from our own experience, forbid a reliance of this kind, are too recent to permit us to be the dupes of such a suggestion. The steady operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind."
-Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 25

 

Trying to remember Hamilton's role as Constitutional author or president...

 

The Militia Act of 1792 required every able bodied male to be equipped with a standard musket and ammunition. It said *nothing* about that musket and ammunition being used only when serving in a militia called out by the President.

So, in effect, the Militia Act was doing *exactly* what Hamilton said in Fed Paper 29: "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; "

The colonies had "select* militias even before the Revolutionary War. It's where the term "Minuteman" came from. The Minutemen units were small units of selected men expected to report "on a minute's notice". These men received more training and drilling than the rest of the militia (i.e. the public at large). Many of the colonies, afterwards known as States, kept these Minuteman units after the Revolutionary War. So while the Federal government had no differentiation before 1903 the States *did*.

After the Constitutional Convention came up with a Constitution 1787 that gave the Federal government the power to raise Armies, the select militia's of the states disappeared quickly. There was no longer any support in the states for funding them.

Had Hamilton and even Washington swung enough weight in the newly formed Congress they could have had the regular and disciplined Army they wanted but didn't get.

In any case, this is all extraneous to the issue at hand. The 2nd Amendment was to keep the Federal government from disarming "the people". The militia was only the reason the 2nd was included, but the right was not restricted to only service in the militia.

 

The cited piece of legislation required the public to be armed. It said nothing about how government will supply arms, ammunition and training to absolutely everyone who is legally regarded as being the militia. If it is believed otherwise, find something stating as much, that the public need not worry about procuring its own materials, as all will be supplied for them by government.

Beyond such, find an example of someone being prosecuted for the charge of use of a firearm outside of recognized militia duties.

 

You falsely claim "The People" as Military or Militia, Rights pertain to "The People" not the Military, which is composed of "The People"
Note: "We The People....etc..."
All Rights listed in the Bill of Rights Amendments are of "The People" hence;
The Right of "The People" to keep and bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

 

Congress can require the militia to purchase its own arms or supply the militia with arms. I already explained that the Second Amendment is neutral regarding the use of firearms for private purposes.

 

Pray tell for what purpose? What type of compelling government interest would be best served by the second amendment supposedly saying nothing about the legality of the private use of privately owned firearms, for private purposes, that have nothing to do with the militia? Why did no laws exist in the absence of such to clarify the matter? What purpose would such an ambiguity ultimately serve?

 

If as you say the 2nd is neutral with regards to private ownership and use, the 10th is unequivocal with regards to an enumerated right of the federal government to have any power to restrict or address private ownership of guns at all.

 

The federal government interest of not wasting time addressing matters that did not need to be addressed.

 

what an oblique concession that the federal government was never delegated any power to disarm the private citizens.

Lets examine your view of the militia act in terms of something else that a militia is required to do

Since Congress could dictate the standard UNIFORM OF THE MILITIA-you would hold that congress could tell private citizens what sort of clothes they could NOT OWN or WEAR while acting in their private capacity in their own sovereign states

 

Congress can regulate guns due to the Commerce and Taxation clauses

 

not honestly or properly. it violates the tenth and second amendments. you have never even attempted to argue why the FDR dishonesty was proper.

 

Pray tell what concept are you trying to present now? The founders who believed it was necessary to spell out that government had no authority over matters of religion, simply did not feel it necessary to address the matter of privately owned firearms? They spoke of soldiers not being quartered in private residences, but firearms held by the people for purposes outside of the scope of the militia was a triviality they simply couldn't be bothered with?

 

Then why was this never, in the history of the united states, done by any administration, until the Roosevelt administration? Are we to believe that thirty one consecutive presidents of the united states, over a period of one hundred and forty four years, simply felt no need to exercise this supposed authority to any degree?

 

Galileo,

I understand everything you are saying. I disagree with it and feel you are on the wrong tack, but I understand it. Here is my summary of it:

The foundation of your interpretation lies in the belief that the Amendment was intended to be limited to protecting the well-regulated militia from federal abuse and neglect. This belief in the overall purpose for the Amendment provides the justification for arguing the RKBA—as protected in the Amendment—was intended to be limited to approved militia members having approved militia arms in approved militia service. This limited interpretation is proper because it conforms the scope of the right (protection only for the approved militia’s arms) to fit the purpose for which you believe the Amendment was created (to protect the militia from federal abuse and neglect).

Now maybe you have misunderstood what I am getting at.

I am not questioning what the theory is, I am questioning its validity.

If your theory is valid, and if the limitation you place on the right is required to make the right fit its purpose, then it should be a small matter to tell me how the limited right fulfils its purpose.

These are not words you expect me to say, but, assuming everything you say is correct:

How does limiting the RKBA to militia arms protect the militia from Congress exercising it exclusive militia arming power?

If Congress decides to use its militia arming power to require the militias to be armed with obsolete and ineffective weapons, then what exactly is the protection conferred by the 2nd Amendment to protect the militias from this abuse and neglect?

If Congress decides to use its exclusive militia organizing power to create a militia so small it could not possibly fulfil any proper militia function, then what does your right of this small band of men to have weapons do to protect the well-regulated militia?

If Congress decides to use its exclusive training and disciplining power to deny proper training by creating and requiring the states to conform to a totally inadequate training program, then how does a right limited to having arms you are not properly trained to handle protect the well-regulated militia?

If the pre-amble gives us the purpose for the right which follows, then why use the term “well-regulated militia” only to thereafter limit the protection to arms of the militia? If the “well-regulated militia” is the beneficiary of the “right of the people,” then why is there no protection for the actual “well-regulation” of the militia?

Or, since militia arms are the only thing you believe are “the right of the people”, then is the pre-amble somehow responsible for protecting the rest? Is it enforceable against a power of Congress? Does the preamble itself somehow impose a limitation on Congress’ power over the organizing, training, and disciplining of the militia? If so, then how?

If not, then why, in an Amendment intended to limit the power of government, placed within a body of other Amendments intended to limit the power of government, are we supposed to read a preamble as a restriction on the “right of the people?” Does it not seem odd that a portion of an Amendment—meant to limit the power of government—is instead read to expand the power of government by giving it total power over the “right of the people”?

Galileo, if your theory is valid, than you should be able to answer these questions.

 

This. A thousand times this.

 

Actually, the right to keep and bear arms is recognized as an individual right by the majority of states' constitutions, including those that pre-date the Bill of Rights and those created subsequent to ratification.

Examples:

Connecticut Constitution Article I, Section 15

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.


Delaware Constitution Article I, Section 20

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.


Pennsylvania Constitution Article I, Section 21

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.


Wyoming Constitution Article I, Section 24

The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=841

 

And still no one has an answer to how the "militia-only" interpretation works....

 

Well-regulated doesn't mean government control or government regulation.

It means well-functioning or working in proper order.

I hope that clears things up for you.

 

Well regulated means not constipated.