The passages quoted support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with a well-trained and disciplined militia and, therefore, functioned well. This description best fits the definition of “fix it” in the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary definition also seems appropriate when considering or implying that the discipline is well trained in a military context. Their reasoning is based on the amendment`s reference to “a well-regulated militia,” which they define as a military force organized and monitored by the government. Apart from a well-regulated militia, they suggest, the Second Amendment has no practical effect that a legislature must respect. Some proponents of gun control also argue that the well-regulated descriptor implies that the government has a great deal of leeway in deciding who is allowed to possess which weapons and under what circumstances. But, as the Supreme Court correctly stated in Heller, these arguments are inconsistent with the text and context of the Second Amendment. The fifth bullet point for the word, bear, in the Johnson dictionary, which predates Websters by several decades (1755), gives the following definition of bear: Thus, the founders, suspecting that a standing army could become a tool of a future tyrant, created a system of checks and balances to thwart a federal army that would never threaten the liberties of American citizens. Their solution was a well-regulated militia. Hiding a weapon in a coat could hardly be considered a sign of authority or distinction.
The above reference to the “coat of arms” refers to a coat of arms. In the same dictionary of 1828, one of the definitions of coat of arms is a coat of arms (source). The wearing of coats of arms in a coat of arms refers to a coat of arms that contains some form of coat of arms (example). This off-site essay offers a different and reasonable view that firearms in the late 18th century meant the full range of weapons, and offers how this definition can be applied “honestly (and constitutionally)” today. The part of the amendment that could be a separate sentence — the right of the people to own and bear arms must not be violated — is known as the “operational clause.” The well-regulated part of the militia – the preface clause – is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as the only reason to maintain the right to own and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would not have that right. In 1789, a militia was not a self-proclaimed force of camouflaged citizens walking alone in the forest. The militias would be raised by every state government, their loyalty and devotion to the new American republic assured by the fact that they would defend their families, neighbors, and homes. Because they would one day have to act as a combined force, militias would have to be “well regulated,” that is, trained to standards set by the federal government. Hamilton emphasizes that a well-regulated militia is a state of readiness achieved after rigorous and persistent training.
Note the use of the term “discipline,” which indicates that discipline could be synonymous with well-trained. In 1775, the Colonial Minutemen, imposing themselves in Lexington and Concord, served in units authorized by the Massachusetts legislature. Although they took up arms against their king and his soldiers, they fought as members of a well-regulated militia. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word “regulate”, all of which were used during the colonial period, and another definition from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1989). These include: A militia is always subject to the control of federal, state or local authorities. A “private” militia or army that is not under state control could be considered illegal and rebellious and therefore severely punished. (See Macnutt, Karen L., Militias, Women and Guns Magazine, March 1995.) But the fact that we currently have a well-regulated militia does not control whether Americans have the right to own and carry firearms. The ideological context of the Second Amendment, the clear meaning of its operational clause, the parallel wording elsewhere in the Constitution, and the militia clauses in Section I make it clear that this is the case. The Second Amendment, as Scalia rightly acknowledged, guarantees the people an individual right, regardless of how the federal government regulates the organized militia. The biggest problem with Benitez`s decision is that the Second Amendment sanctions a “well-regulated militia,” not an informal gathering of armed citizens. As the founders knew, a “well-regulated militia” was one that was licensed, trained, and, increasingly during the American Revolution, armed and deployed.
Yet many activists and jurists, as well as at least two Supreme Court justices who disagreed with Heller, believe that the Second Amendment, properly interpreted, never guaranteed an individual right, or at least no right related to self-defense at home. For a definition of today`s militia, as defined by law in the United States Code, click here. Dr. Robert J. Cottrol is the editor of Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment. And Cottrol, a Second Amendment expert and legal historian, is a Harold Paul Green Professor of Law at George Washington University. He says the words “well-regulated” refer to world-class competence and training. We can take inspiration from the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 29 which meant well regulated: I was thinking about it in the context of the Second Amendment – the right to bear arms – so I went back to read the founders` intention.
I found the answer in Federalist #29, where Alexander Hamilton explained the meaning of the phrase “a well-regulated militia.” To understand it, however, it is useful to put oneself in the context of America in 1789. If the founders were alive today, I think they would be very concerned — because the Constitution is clear that the only militias protected by the Second Amendment are “well-regulated” entities authorized and controlled by state governments, not private citizen militias. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that California`s assault weapons unconstitutionally restricted the rights of Second Amendment citizens by preventing them from using assault weapons for home defense and other lawful purposes. California`s defense was that assault weapons are more dangerous than other firearms and therefore subject to additional restrictions. In colonial times, “weapons” generally referred to weapons that could be carried. These included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of that time had a separate definition of “regulation” (as it was written at the time), which meant canon. All non-orderly small arms and light weapons are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously, nuclear weapons, tanks, missiles, fighter jets and submarines are not.
In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The court took a collective rights approach in that case, ruling that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had been moved into interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun “has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or effectiveness of a well-regulated militia.” The court went on to say that the drafters included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military. But Yale law professor Akhil Amar argues, “When the Constitution speaks of `people` and not `persons,` the collective connotation is paramount.” .