What If Only Members of the Well-Regulated Militia Had Firearms?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

What would happen if SCOTUS were to rule that the right to keep and bear arms is to be limited only to those people who are members of the well-regulated militia?

Interestingly enough they already have ruled on this about 30 years ago.

Back in the Reagan era the gun control proponents tried arguing that the National Guard was the militia and as a result there was no need for regular citizens to own weapons.

One of the characteristics of the militia agreed to by everyone (pretty much) is that the militia is under the sole authority of the state/governor and not subject to federal authority.

Where the confusion arose was that many people also presumed the National Guard was the same as the militia.

This question came to a head when President Reagan started sending National Guard units to Honduras during the Nicaragua situation. The governors of Minnesota and Massachusetts brought suit attempting to stop these deployments. The respective cases, Perpich v US and Dukakis v US resolved the question by saying the the National Guard was *not* the militia because the Nationsl Guard was a federal organization subject to the call of the President. Also it was merely on loan to the states and that the only real militia totally under control of the states was whatever armed citizens they had on hand in whatever organization the state so decided.

Thus the National Guard is not the militia and disarming citizens only reduces public safety by taking away the largest source of armed personnel available to the state.

Also, the term “well-regulated” in the Second Amendment when it was written, per the Oxford English Dictionary (the 13 volume set), means “equipped so as to function properly ” like a clock. Whereas the modern interpretation of choking with rules so much an organization can’t function is “rare and obscure”. So the meaning of “well-regulated” intends for the citizens to have the equipment necessary to function properly as a militia, not overburdened with regulations such that most equipment is off limits to citizens.

Additionally, when the Second Amendment refers to “arms” it refers to *all* arms, not small arms, or fire arms, or infantry arms, (also see the OED definition of arms) but everything as evidenced by the fact that but for the various state and national firearms laws passed in the 20th century, a citizen is otherwise able under the Second Amendment to possess anything they want.

So the the National Guard is not the militia, the militia consists of the armed citizenry and the Second Amendment intends for people to possess all arms, not just small arms, in order to be “well regulated”, that is, equipped so as to function properly as part of a militia.

This entry was posted in Bearing Arms, Judicial and Courts, Op Ed, U.S. Constitution. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *