Guest blogged by Ernest A. Canning
The horror that played out during the recent midnight massacre inside a Century theater in Aurora, CO is but the latest example of the danger posed to our safety and our very lives by the radical right’s expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment.
On June 28, 2008, that view — that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected to service in a state militia — became the law of the land, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s hard right quintet’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (“Heller“) — a 5-4 decision that ignored precedent, history and basic rules of constitutional interpretation.
Heller not only elevated the profits of the domestic small arms industry above the ability of government to protect our safety, our general welfare, our domestic tranquility and our very lives, but provided a disturbing new context to the eerily prescient 1991 warning provided by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) when he likened the confirmation of Clarence Thomas as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to a game of “Russian Roulette”…
Ignoring text, history and precedent
In his powerful dissent in Heller, Justice John Paul Stevens observed:
The question before the Court in Heller was not new. It was squarely faced by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller (1939), which upheld a conviction under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because there was no evidence that would demonstrate that the use of a sawed-off shotgun bore a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficacy of a well regulated militia.”
The Second Amendment states [emphasis added]: “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.”
Stevens excoriated the majority for treating the preamble of the Second Amendment relating to a “well regulated militia” as if it were mere surplusage. “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.” Marbury v. Madison (1803).
The first two clauses, “well regulated Militia” and “security of a free State” inform the meaning of the words “the people” in the third clause, Stevens proclaimed.
Stevens insisted that neither historical evidence nor the context of the language, taken as a whole, supports the conclusion that the Second Amendment was intended to secure to civilians the right to “keep and bear” arms for personal use. Indeed, he observed, quoting from the Oxford English dictionary, the words “bear arms” means “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.”
Justice Stephen Breyer, in a separate dissent, added weight to the argument that the Second Amendment was never intended to prevent legislatures from passing gun control legislation “of great public importance, namely, saving lives, preventing injury, and reducing crime.” He pointed out that, at the time the Second Amendment was passed, Boston, Philadelphia and New York had all placed restrictions on firing guns within city limits and had regulated “the storage of gunpowder, a necessary component of an operational fire arm.”
The Rev. Jesse Jackson recently added one more salient point. “We cannot…be hiding behind the 2nd Amendment,” he said, “to justify weapons that the writers of the Constitution never imagined.”
For citizens, like those inside the crowded Aurora theater, there is a deadly difference between someone armed with an AR-15 assault rifle with a high-capacity, 100-round drum magazine capable of firing between 50-60 rounds/minute, even in semi-automatic mode, and what citizens in the 18th Century had to face in the form of a single-shot flintlock. If Holmes had been armed with an 18th Century flintlock, the unarmed but angry crowd could have subdued him long before he could load a second shot.
Dangerous delusion
“If we take our guns away,” caller “George” from Huntington Beach asked Brad Friedman during the July 25 airing of The BradCast on Pacifica Radio’s Los Angeles affiliate, KPFK, “isn’t the police still going to have machine guns?”
The BRAD BLOG has not shied away from harsh criticism of the fully militarized, and, at times, brutal crackdown on peaceful Occupy protesters by ostensibly civilian law enforcement.
Imagine, however, what would have happened during that militarized crackdown if some fool in the crowd opened fire on the police with an AR-15. Actually, you don’t have to imagine. Just look at what is taking place today in Syria where thousands of civilians, caught in the cross-fire, are being slaughtered.
The notion that individuals — even those armed to the teeth like sociopath James Holmes — could fend off the power of an increasingly militarized civilian law enforcement, let alone the overwhelming military power of the United States government, reflects an exceedingly dangerous and counterproductive, paranoid delusion.
It is a delusion which one can find at the center of the 250% increase in heavily-armed, right wing extremist “patriot” groups. However, as the July 25 calls to The BradCast revealed, it is also a delusion which holds sway over many who identify with the left.
Democracy is achieved by ballots, not bullets. “The right to vote,” MN Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson recently observed, “is an institutional way to peacefully revolt.” That institutional form of revolt can be reinforced by peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience, even to the point of engaging in a general strike.
But violence, whether committed at home or abroad, is not the answer.
“They make a desolation,” the ancient Roman historian Tacitus, observed while commenting on the folly of imperial conquest, “and call it peace.”
Follow the money
From the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the rest of the gun lobby, we hear the mantra, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
But if we want to understand the reality behind the lobbying and the right wing quintet on the Supreme Court — be it in favor of “corporate free speech” in the infamous Citizens United decision, or the tortured construction of the Second Amendment by these self-described “strict constructionists” in Heller — we need only follow the money.
In 2009, U.S. small arms manufacturers sold more than 14 million guns — “more than 21 of the world’s standing armies combined.”
Not only has the U.S. small arms industry experienced tremendous growth, but, courtesy of the effective gun lobby and the radical Supreme Court quintet, its sales have veered towards more sophisticated (and expensive) weaponry.
According to the Violence Policy Center, that growth has entailed expansion of civilian sales of “sophisticated battlefield weapons” — many finding their way into the killing fields of the Mexican drug cartels, including “the Barrett 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifle…semiautomatic versions of military assault weapons, such as AR-15 and AK-47 assault rifle models,” and weapons capable of penetrating body armor.
For those unfamiliar with the power of a 50 caliber weapon, suffice it to state that when the author served in a mechanized infantry unit in Vietnam, he witnessed smaller trees being mowed down by the 50 caliber machine guns mounted atop our armored personnel carriers.
To this, Bill Moyers adds:
Wikipedia reports that, in the UK, “Firearms are tightly controlled by law, and there is little political debate and no strong public opposition to control.”
The benefits to public safety are rather striking. As revealed by statistics from each country, “In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher.”
The U.S., Michael Moore asserts, “is responsible for over 80% of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined.”
The Aurora Massacre is precisely what we can expect when the profits of arms manufacturers supplant the core purpose of government to protect the very lives of its citizens. Holmes was a 24-year old graduate student. He had no criminal history; no psychiatric history — nothing that would have prevented him from obtaining the weapons or the more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition he purchased on-line in the weeks leading to the assault.
At the time of the assault, Holmes was wearing tactical gear, including a gas mask, an assault vest, body armor, magazine pouches and a knife. He had in his possession a Remington 8-gage shotgun, two 40-caliber Glock handguns, and an AR-15 assault rifle with a drum magazine capable of firing between 50-60 rounds/minute even in semi-automatic mode. All of this was legally acquired. Under Colorado law, even if they were already loaded, his transport of those weapons inside his vehicle was perfectly legal.
In short, Colorado law enforcement was not in a position to arrest Holmes until the moment he opened fire. How insane is that?
A petition to reinstate the ban on assault rifles, as supported by Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and Bill Clinton, can be signed, here.
Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968). Follow him on Twitter: @Cann4ing.
What I already said: http://wisconsinwit.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/dear-nra-youre-nuts/
Great piece, Ernie!
Great piece, Ernest,
As a rural dweller, I do appreciate the personal right to bear arms. But I keep hearing Right Wing talk radio hosts post-Aurora talking about how “They (Obama admin.) are just trying to take away our second amendment rights!” This is absolutely about our second amendment rights. When Congress refuses not to “well-regulate” guns, they have taken away MY rights as a citizen.
They’ll say that any gun regulation is a “slippery slope” toward taking away all guns. But gee, what would happen if somebody legally was able to buy military style weapons and ammunition so they could mow down kids in a theater? That slope toward mayhem would seem pretty slippery, wouldn’t it? Oh, wait, I’m sliding now……….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-says-many-of-suspected-colorado-shooters-weapons-were-illegal/2012/07/25/gJQAFFjq9W_story.html
“… it was illegal for him to have many of those things already.” Mitt Romney said.
So is Romney wrong?
Or is his quote, ‘out of context’?
Admittedly, my perspective on gun issues is rather unique. I haven’t owned or used a firearm for over 30 years. I adopted this posture for 2 basic reasons.
1. Disarmament starts with ME.
2. As a former member of Nuclear Weapons Handling Teams whose battle station tasked me to actually LAUNCH nuclear weapons, I’ve seen how this all ends; with shadows of people burned into the walls of buildings like they were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when I visited there,
Do here are the arguments I make to gun fetishists out there:
1. Will your “sporterized” version of your Military arm du jour stop a drone-launched Hellfire Missile?
2.If the purpose of the right to bear arms is to provide a “well-regulated Militia”, can we abolish the DOD and the Armed Forces and just Draft you gun nuts INTO that Well-Regulated Militia whenever we need to?
3.If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is as a check on governmental tyranny, Why not legalize private ownership of Nuclear Weapons? If an Armed Society is a “CIVIL” Society, think of how “Civil” everyone wil have to be if everyone posesses NUCWEPS.
It appears, G-Man @4 that it is you who has taken the words from the Washington Post article out-of-context. Worse, you present what that paper paraphrased as if it were an actual quote from the presumptive Republican nominee.
Had you read that short piece in its entirety, you would have already found the answer to your question. The article reads:
But the firearms that authorities allege James Holmes used to kill 12 people in Aurora, Colo., were obtained legally.
As reported by the Huffington Post, both the AR-15 and the high-capacity magazine were outlawed by the assault weapons ban, but Congress permitted the ban to lapse in 2004.
Some states still ban high capacity magazines, but Colorado is not one of them.
The Huffington Post, quoting Ginder Colbrun of the ATF, noted that there’s “no restriction on the sale of bullets in the United States, except for armor-piercing rounds…”
Thus, Holmes’ purchase of 6,000 rounds on-line was legal, as was his purchase of body armor.
That body armor, which included “a ballistic helmet, gas mask, throat-protector, tactical vest and pants” was so complete, “that responding officers almost mistook [Holmes] for a member of the SWAT team,” according to the Huffington Post.
Thus, assuming Romney claimed that the items utilized by James Holmes in the Midnight Massacre were illegally acquired, one could safely say that the presumptive Republican nominee got it wrong.
That said, to date neither the President nor his Republican opponent have displayed the courage required to face down the threat posed by what Brad Friedman aptly described as the “terrorist-enabling” NRA.
For what it’s worth, I wasn’t sure what G-Man was getting at in his comment or who he might be giving some shit to. Seemed like maybe he was referring to the recent Obama misquoting but if he was I wasn’t sure exactly how. I dunno.
What part of “Shall not be Infringed”, does Congress and the Senate, and the Supreme Court, not understand?
Ernest #6
Ack! What? Eh? No, I did not misquote Romney according to the article:
I was trying to be sarcastic. Okay? I’m actually on your side. Sorry for the confusion!!
I was, as #7 eluded to, pointing out that Romney either is wrong about his use of the word “illegal”, or that my quoting him was ‘out of context’, and that what he really meant (as a spokesperson of his said–but in another source) was that the “bombs” were “illegal”.
I am probably not even being to clear now. But I am quite taken aback by your comment.
I was attempting to be humorous/sarcastic. I feel bad that I was not clear enough. I will try to be clearer in any future comments.
You and Brad do great work! That is why I read Brad Blog! Sorry for my “gaffe”!
David #7
I was not trying to “give shit” to anyone, as I tried to explain in my previous comment.
I feel bad that this happened.
Should our scholars of the Senate and Congress, and the supreme Court, carefully read the Federalist Papers and the recorded written exchanges between several members of our concerned Congress, during the inception of the Bill of Rights, so to speak, were reviewed, intelligently, it would be clear, the true purpose of the “People” having the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was to protect ourselves from a Corrupted, and Muck-running majority from making it easy to disarm and capture the “People” to regain the lost power and wealth which England had lost. This 2nd Amendment prevents a Tyrannous Government from Treasonous practices, thereby giving the “us” the ability to protect our Nation from such Treason and Tyranny, and/or to protect ourselves from Crimes from Criminals or that of our own Government.
Everyone should be in favor of protecting our Nation from Crime, should they, not? We also want to take pride in protecting our Congress from attack from an outside invasion of foreign attackers, and we must take pride to protect all of our Government Officials, unless, of course, they are suspected of Treason or other High Crimes and Misdameanors, and must be apprehended for the Justice Department to Prosecute, at our beconned call, to assist in the capture.
No one in their right mind would stop us from preventing a crime, would they???? I would think our Congress would be honored to have our interests of their safety, at heart.
Why would I ever imagine there would be a hint of Paranoia, as a reason to take our Guns, regardless of how short or long they may be, or number of projectiles they may deliver in a hours time, or perhaps less time at a higher rate of delivery. What would be the logic in restricting our ability to prevent crime. One would think, a Sheriff would be thrilled to assemble a Posse at the drop of a hat, to apprehend a Traitor, or worse, such as a wayward Junior Congressman, angry at the meager salary he may be getting for such important duties to his country. We may even have to apprehend a very experienced Congressman, gone wrong from the bad influences of outsiders trying to bribe him for favors from the Public Treasury, which should be a passionate watchful eye out for such folly.
Such a shame, that we must be watchful of our own, to save them from the temptation of others.
It’s time to show some Honor and set the Cards on the Table, for all to see. Everyone wants to go to Heaven, don’t they?? C’mon guys, give us our money back, so we can feed our children, and maybe a neighbor or two, who need a few cans of beans for a meal. We need our money to do those good things for the People.
Isn’t it our Government Duty to protect our rights to exercise our Individual Responsibilities, and be protected from invasion from an enemy crossing our Borders, like boogy men, to steal our Horses and Mules, and have evil thoughts of our daughters and wives.
Protect us, as the Constitution implies, and demands, don’t play those Legalese Games with us, with those confusing Latin Words and “Quid Pro Quo” stuff, or “Ex post facto laws” and invading our soverign homes and family parties, whereby we can mix up some rotten Watermellon rinds and drink the ugly tasting stuff, without being Rode down and shot, for enjoying life. We would even like to drink that stuff in 24 ounce bottles, not a disgusting 12 oz pudding glass, like they Slickers use in New York.
Let’s get back to Basics and get those Farms Working, again.
We just want some Old Fashioned honesty and Respect. How can anyone be proud to live on Welfare. Let them get some exercise and clean out those bodies with a little Salty Sweat, so I can buy my family a new pair of shoes for Christmas, instead of buying Beer and Cigarettes for a lazy person to sit and watch a TV we all paid for.
More later. We need to stop this Run Away Liberal Freight Train, with no brakes on it. Let’s back up a bit, until we can afford to buy those 50 M $ Electric Cars, until then, lets use up some of that cheap Oil in our own Lands until the Engineers can get a better education. Just slow down that Steril Mule, for a few years. have that President go to lunch on his own pay check, not ours.
Indeed: “Guns don’t kill people.”
It’s people WITH guns who kill people.©
Heil profit !!!
G-Man @9&10,
Yeah, that’s sorta what I meant by what I said, though I’m still not completely sure what you’re getting at. I just wasn’t sure Ernie was getting your meaning on that one. Words can be tricky.
“How can anyone be proud to live on Welfare.”
I keep seeing various versions of this thought posted across the internet, yet there are a few questions the posters refuse to answer. Lets see if you’re any different.
What is your evidence there are people who are “proud to live on Welfare”? And if you have such evidence, what percentage of welfare recipients fit your smear – er, description.
David, my first post was an “utter fail” at trying to communicate. I shall hope that it fades away from our minds as quickly as I dashed it off.
G-man @various.
It is I who should apologize for misinterpreting what you were trying to say.
I’m reminded of a line from the movie, The Last Emperor.
Your endeavor to communicate your concerns was obviously an honest one, and it is respected as such.
Now that you’ve provided a complete quote, it would appear that Romney, whose lack of the ability to fully articulate his thoughts is all too reminiscent of dubya, was partially correct.
The bomb-like booby trap Holmes rigged in his apartment probably was illegal. The weapons, ammo and body armor he used for the Midnight Massacre were legally acquired.
I don’t understand why people are arguing about ‘original intent’, when it’s historically clear that the *entire bill of rights* did not apply to state or local governments until the 14th Amendment, and SCOTUS decisions in the 1890s that established the incorporation doctrine.
Lucid Lee said @ 8 –
So, when those bodies “infringe” the “right” for the people to obtain anthrax, rocket launchers, nuclear weapons, etc., you feel they are violating the Constitution, correct?
g-man said @ 10:
Please don’t. It happens. FWIW, I sensed you were not being Wingnutty with your question, just unclear, and that Ernie might have been a bit quick to pull his trigger. That’s one of the reason I hadn’t responded. Glad to hear that was the case! And very glad you’re here!
Lucid Lee @ 11 –
Wow. I had to read that whole thing, waiting for your reveal that you were being satirical! Got all the way to the end and the reveal never came! I guess you actually believe what you wrote, despite the fact that I’d be hard-pressed to find a single sentence in it that was either accurate, or had any actual evidence to support it in any way, shape or form.
If you are not satirical, then it’s so, very very sad. Apparently, the push to completely disinform folks like yourself has been a tremendous success.
That Lucid Lee comment seemed anything but to me. Kept on trying to make sense of it from either a satirical point of view or some kind of opposite gun-totin’, cigar-smokin’, hells-a-pokin’ point of view and I kept on having very little idea where any of it was coming from.
I would concur with David Lasagna’s observation that Lee @11 was anything but “Lucid.”
Contrary to Lee’s suggestion, Justice Stevens did, indeed, “carefully read the Federalist Papers and the recorded written exchanges between several members of our concerned Congress, during the inception of the Bill of Rights…”
Stevens, in his dissent, provided a detailed analysis of the discourse that occurred during the various state ratification conventions, along with both proposed language that was rejected in the final draft and language that was retained.
Stevens, after a careful analysis concluded:
That explains the purpose behind “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.” It is a military purpose tied to the idea that a state militia could secure liberty against the potential tyranny of a standing federal army — one which could be overcome if the power to fund and discipline the state militias were left exclusively in the hands of the federal government.
Stevens concluded that the 2d Amendment was motivated exclusively as a means to preserve state militias and:
This would be a good piece if it was accurate and based on the intentions of those that wrote the 2nd Amendment over 200 years ago. It’s easy to take today’s events and create a fictitious “translation” to suit your gun control argument, but I noticed a glaring omission in your references – that of the framers. Your piece would fall apart had you included those references. So, let me tell you what the framers intended using their own words.
George Mason was a co-author of the 2nd Amendment. Since you highlighted the “well-regulated militia” clause of the second amendment, it’s important to ask, “what is a militia?” In Mason’s own words, the militia is “the whole people.” Doesn’t sound like a limited band of government troops or even the National Guard to me.
In discussing the 2nd Amendment, Samual Adams also clarified the intent of the Constitution when his state was working on its own Constitution. He said, “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” Emphasis mine.
George Washington recognized that had the King disarmed the populace, we may very well still be ruled by a monarchy. Nearly all of the Revolutionary Warriors’ arms were personal weapons. Of the right to carry firearms by the individual, Washington called it the “American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”
Gun grabbers may say, “well, they couldn’t imagine the guns of today?” Really, so the 2nd Amendment only includes muskets? Wrong again. Washington also said that “the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
So, the only one “misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment is the writer of this blog post.
It is unfortunate, CJ @23, that you didn’t actually read Justice Stevens’ dissent before leveling your blast about the “framers’ words.”
Had you done so, you would see that, among others, Stevens directly quoted the same George Mason that you cite as proof that the 2d amendment was intended to prevent regulations of personal possession of firearms for the protection of the health, safety and general welfare of the public at large.
Stevens wrote:
“The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practiced in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless — by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has the exclusive right to arm them.”
There is simply no viable evidence to support the construction that the framers had intended to prevent state legislatures, let alone the national government, from imposing restrictions upon the personal use of firearms.
To the contrary, per Justice Stevens, whose views were shared by Justices Souter, Ginsberg & Breyer:
The history, the language and long-standing precedents all demonstrate that the purpose of the 2d Amendment was inextricably tied to the maintenance of “well regulated” state militias.
I guess, like global climate change, those who support the profits of the arms manufacturers find that to be an extraordinarily inconvenient truth.
Brilliant piece on our gun madness by Phil Rockstroh. For me really gets going after the initial paragraphs on the new Batman movie.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/31-4
(I’d also guess that there is next to no chance that people who are really into guns are gonna understand this critique.)
Thanks for the link, David.
Interesting take on The Dark Knight portraying the 99% as rabble, but I especially loved Rockstroh’s line:
While that doesn’t detract from the fact that the framers had designed the 2d amendment in order to insure that state militias could not be extinguished by Congressional neglect, it does add perspective when gun advocates, like CJ @23, search out obscure, out of context quotes from Mason and Washington, as if these were the word of God — so how dare we question the insanity of policies that lawfully placed an arsenal in the hands of a sociopath like James Holmes.
yo Ernie, I am a nurse who has concelled her oldest sister to take my advice and have her daughter arrested. My sister hesitated and then my other sister who is a psychologist called me up and told me I had to go into the detectives’s office with her because she basically hadn’t come to terms with the truth. To make a long story short, ( and a very few success story) my niece is now clean for 7-8 years as well her husband.) He is now a lawyer and she is a communications grad. they are having a clean baby and I’m to be an Auntie again. Let me tell you about the human cost of our country’s bs. Any who, thought I’d share, on a discussion of how guns effect illegal drug trade.
My mom always told me I was a poor speller… that would be “counseled” above. :-)But hey’ even she recognized I was her smartest kid!
Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968)
I’m surprised by your credentials.You don’t seem very bright or well informed.
Brian @29 — Did it ever occur to you that a gratuitous insult is a far cry from a fact-based argument?
Brian.
Congrats. We got some doozies around here, but I do believe you just won the dickishness award.
From the Dred Scott decision:
One of the arguments made in support of the 14th Amendment was that State militias in the post-war Southern States were disarming freedmen. Northern congressmen insisted that former slaves had the same rights as white citizens, including the right to keep (have at hand) and bear (carry) arms.
Further, the US Constitution, Article I section 8, gives to Congress the power to grant letters of mark. A letter of mark is authorization from a government to the owner of a warship to make war in the name of that government. It makes the difference between a privateer and a pirate. The authors of the Constitution expected that private individuals (or, more likely, trading companies) would own warships.
The author makes a common mistake about the meaning of the words ‘well-regulated militia.’
A ‘well-regulated militia’ means a well-trained militia who can move as a unit, fire to a commanded point of aim, and who will not break under fire.
You would be more familiar with the opposite term, an ‘irregular militia’. The most likely fiction you would have come across the term in is Sherlock Holmes’s books, movies, and cartoons; where he maintains what he calls the ‘Baker’s Street Irregulars.’ They are his pack of orphans and street kids whom he pays to keep him informed and whom he can marshal into a dangerous slingshot-wielding cadre at a moment’s notice. You might see them in the next Sherlock Holmes movie.
‘Irregulars’ can be dangerous troops to fight, but have a tendency to break and run. Famously, President Theodore Roosevelt fought in the American First Irregular Cavalry in his famous charge up San Juan Hill. The First Irregular Cavalry was made up of highly skilled volunteers – all famous lawmen, trackers, sharpshooters, and rangers – but because they had never had the opportunity to train together, they were called ‘Irregular Cavalry’ as opposed to ‘Well-Regulated.’
If you ever read western fiction, or histories from the Western and Civil war area, people often refer to ‘regulars’ or ‘reg’lars’ in dialect. In Disney’s The Ballad Of Davy Crockett, they rever to ‘Andy Jackson is our gen’ral’s name, his reg’lar soldiers we’ll put to shame.’ A related term is ‘regulators’ which means means an armed group who is trained to work together, likely to impose the will of a landowner more than a government. The Pinkertons (the first modern detective agency) maintained ‘regulators’.
Currently, the army of a state is called the ‘regular army’ while guerilla forces who may work for a state at some remove, like terrorist groups with deniable contacts, are called ‘irregulars.’ Someone who has been through US Army Basic Training used to be called an ‘Army Regular.’
Obviously, in the Revolutionary War period, the United States did not have a standing army and would not for many years. A ‘well-regulated’ militia did not mean one controlled by rules from the government, but one which had drilled together and practiced with their weapons so that when they were called out, they could march to where they were needed and shoot at what they were supposed to shoot at.
What puzzles me is that it isn’t recognised the “Militia” of 2d is the same militia defined in Article 1 Section 8 (powers of Congress). I don’t think the Founders were so slipshod as to create a total new military force with the same name as one previously defined. The language that defines the militia is the same language that defines the National Guard – a name change doesn’t require a Constitutional amendment.
Justice Stephens’ opinion answers your puzzlement, Carver:
One of the principle reasons for adopting the 2d Amendment arose, according to Justice Stephens, because, while Article 1 “empowered Congress to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, it did not prevent Congress from providing for the militia’s disarmament.â€
The 2d Amendment was adopted, in part, to insure that Congress didn’t utilize the power of the purse to eliminate state militias even as it erected a feared, national standing army.
The above passage also refutes Luagha’s mistaken belief that the founders were not concerned with a “well-regulated militia” that is controlled by rules from government.
I am certain that the founders were concerned with the militia – that is why it is mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution and in US Title Code.
I don’t see how that refutes that ‘well-regulated militia’ as written in the Second Amendment is a referent to definitions 2, 3, and 4 of the word ‘regulate’ from dictionary.com:
2.
to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3.
to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4.
to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.
and not:
1.
to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
I gave many examples of past and even current usage that indicate the meaning of ‘regular’, ‘regulate’ and ‘irregular’ in the context of militias. A better dictionary than the free one at dictionary.com will give you far more than that.
The first clause is of the second amendment is to ensure that we have access to militias that are up to spec, that are accurate, that are capable, and in good order.