Gun Control & RKBA

AndyS wrote:But forget all that for a moment. Read the Federalist Papers and glean from them what the founders really thought a militia was to be.

Once ignoring Stare Decisis becomes a regular occurrence we just might get back to what Madison really meant about a 'well regulated militia'. Or it could lead to a major restructuring of the Court. Or both.

First thing to understand about the Federalist Papers and their explanations of militia, is they were explaining what the powers being granted to Congress in Art I, §8 were going to be . . . The discussions were not directed to what the retained right to arms of the people encompassed, people who were not under any impressment of (future) militia regulations, i.e., Militia Act of 1792. Of course explaining what the extent and ambit of powers are,informs us of what rights are . . . Everything not conferred to government is retained by the people.

None of what the Federalist Papers say helps the arguments of those who push the anti-individual-right and advocate for strict[er] gun restrictions.

On the specific point of what a "well regulated militia" is, that is more the work of Hamilton, not Madison and you should read Federalist 29 for that information.

Hamilton speaks directly on "well-regulated militia" and what that designation means and what the actual, insufferable repercussions would be of a government mandate that "all the militia" actually attain the level of expertness that would justify the awarding of the descriptor, "well regulated militia" (paragraph breaks added):

"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, 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, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.

To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

From the start it is clear that "the project of disciplining" has more to do with -practice makes perfect- than -Congress shall have the power to regulate-. "Expertness in movements" is not something the militia can achieve by having a volume of regulations sent from Washington DC read to them.

The "yeomanry" was a class of citizen very familiar to those of British extraction. "Yeomanry" were the familiar English class of arms bearers and arms bearing was a "right" limited to those who were landholders. Hamilton's adding of, "and of the other classes of citizens" is a direct refutation and condemnation of the exclusions outlined in English common law and their bill of rights that the framers and Colonists held in contempt. That general inclusion, of every class of citizen, without regard for land ownership, (or religion or title of nobility), told the people that no exclusions or qualifications attached to a citizen's status were to be enacted or inferred by the proposed constitution on arms possession or use.

So, these people, presumably the farmers and carpenters and blacksmiths and butchers and bakers and candlestick makers who under law were obligated to enroll and present themselves with an arm provided by themselves, would be taken from their essential work for this intensive training. Hamilton recognizes such intensive training could only be achieved through an unacceptable mandate from government upon all, ("To oblige the great body" ).

And for this discussion, it is plainly clear that the term "well regulated," as used to describe militia, does not simply infer being constrained by legal act by a legislative body. Well regulated is merely an accolade; it describes a quality; ("the character of" ) the unit and the men. That description is earned. It is earned only after demonstrating expertness in military readiness and order ("acquire the degree of perfection" ). It is a description that is bestowed ("entitle them to" ), it certainly is not describing the legally constrained condition of simply being under regulations that is often claimed by those who deny the RKBA.

After exploring and explaining the futility of any requirement that the "whole nation" actually perform to he level of "well regulated" militia, Hamilton resigns himself to the only legitimate level of obligation the government could enforce upon the citizens . . . "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped" and perhaps have them turn out on occasion for inspection, to ensure arms were in good working order and of suitable type with military usefulness.

The biggest point to understand is, none of that, the organization and training and deployment of militia, has ANYTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

.