Non-American here. I recently read the actual second amendment, having only really known of the “right to bear arms” bit before. It is in its complete form and to the best of my knowledge:
“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”
As I read this, it seems strongly implied that you are supposed to be part of a goverment run milita, like the National Guard, or at least something looser that is regulated by goverement if you are going to keep Arms. Has this ever been a requirement for non-hunting type weapons, at Federal or State level? And if it was dropped, why?
28 comments
>As I read this, it seems strongly implied that you are supposed to be part of a goverment run milita
>”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”
You can read this any way you want:
1. Well regulated militia is necessary to security blah blah, and the right of people to keep and bear arms
2. Being part of Well regulated militia the right of people blah blah
The entire problem with 2A is the interpretation. It is too vague. Someone invent a time machine and just tell Jefferson to “Just say you can own weapons ffs.”
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim#:~:text=(a)%20The%20militia%20of%20the,the%20United%20States%20who%20are
—–
>§246. Militia: composition and classes
>>(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
>>(b) The classes of the militia are—
>>(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
>>(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
—–
—–
>automatic weapons
NFA restricts ownership of automatic weapons to pre-1986 manufacturing, has a VERY strict transportations and licensing requirements.
—-
—-
> if you are going to keep Arms.
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
—-
>non-hunting type weapons
Like what?
See *District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)* to understand the 2A
No
>**the right of the people to keep and bear Arms**, shall not be infringed
What the amendment is saying is that a well regulated Militia (the militia being the thing that is regulated) is not possible unless the citizens can “keep and bear arms”
No. You don’t need to be a militia or military to own firearms. The 2A protects everyone’s right to arms, not just the government.
Also, I forgot what law it is, but it says the militia is both A) the National guard, and B) an individual citizen
In colonial times, towns would have local militias, made up of local people, drill and train regularly, and bring their own firearms. But it was a different time, not only no automatic weapons, not even interchangeable parts. Because the context is so dated, there are a variety of conflicting interpretations.
Basically no one in America owns an automatic weapon
> it seems strongly implied that you are supposed to be part of a goverment run milita
Nope. The militia clause is explanatory, not conditional. We have the right to keep and bear arms *in case* we need a militia.
Also, automatic weapons are quite rare in the US. They’re quite expensive to own, with legal hurdles beyond the cost of the weapon itself. All the eeevil “assault weapons” you hear about are simply semi-automatic rifles like your grandpa used in WWII but with a modern facelift.
No.
Owning firearms is the right of every American, not just members of the military/national guard.
Any American who is legally allowed to own a firearm is allowed to own any type of firearm irregardless of its size (caliber), select fire capability (machine guns), destructive devices (grenades, grenade launchers, explosives, etc). So on and so on.
No – it was never a requirement. Here’s the definition of the militia for the current day:
​
>(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Historically the Courts have held that it’s an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, and they are a resource that the government can call up as a militia. However, many of the 19th century cases, also held that the 2A (and 1A) only was a restriction on the Federal Government, not states.
You should probably understand that sword hunts were common practice for tyrannical governments thoughout history and the first thing the British government did when it was trying to enforce its will on the colonists was try to disarm them.
Also, i think it’s pretty obvious that the government wasn’t trying to reassure the colonists that they would be allowed to serve the government.
The militia in this context means every able bodied citizen, you have never needed to be part of the military to own any weapon.
In Natural Guard your weapons is own by government so it stays in armoury.
Each state has its own laws.
At a time federal law says automatic weapons were banned.
Militia are grayvareas as onlyba few are technically legal, sone are anti-gov groups.
Automatic weapons have been illegal to manufacture for the general public for decades. The lack of inventory coupled with the tax stamp required to own one makes it pretty much all but impossible for the average person to obtain one legally.
One of the worst part of the word assault rifle” the uneducated think this means pull trigger once dozens of bullets fly, and that is not true
If being in the militia was a requirement to bear arms, they would have written it that way.
Well-regulated at the time meant in good working order.
A militia is an armed group made up of able-bodied citizens, who are commonly referred to as “the people”
Essentially, the 2A can be rewritten as follows:
The security of a free state depends on the existence of a competent militia that is made up of the people. Therefore, the people shall not be denied the right to possess and carry arms, because denying them the right to do so will reduce the effectiveness of any militia that is formed by the people.
It’s overly wordy, which is why the original language was used.
Regulated during that time meant more like regular, meaning more trained. ya know
>Has being in a militia/ National Guard ever been a legal requirement to own an automatic weapon?
No. Being in military service has never been a legal requirement, for anything. There could be arguments made that the draft and current registration for Selective Service is. Legally, until you were conscripted (*and* approved for service) you had no legal requirement to serve.
>Quite a broad definition of militia
Yes, yes it is… and it was (*probably*) intentionally so. Consider this: The new country just spent 8 Years fighting british “regulars” and have for the last 10 years making do with a weak federal government and weak bonds. You finally get it together enough to write a supreme law of the land. You include a standing army in the original articles( Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 ) but keep it weak, as some wanted there to be *none*. How do you prepare for what you are sure is a war of retribution coming? allow individuals to be armed and to be a “militia”.
>non-hunting type weapons
>
>Basically, low calibre (?) bolt action or double barrel shotguns…
I do understand that, but the weapons of the day were larger caliber than most today. The brown bess was .80 caliber. The hunting issue is frame of reference. In the UK, the largest game you hunt is a Red Deer. Not small by any means. Here however the red deer fall in the smaller scale of [Big Game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_in_the_United_States), and this excludes predators like cougars and bear. If you shoot a bear with a small caliber rifle, you’ll just piss it off!
​
>Ak47s and Ar15s(?) not so much is my understanding
And herein lies 90% of the issue in the debates. most of the arguments are about form over function. These [two](https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/opb/MWQKV4USVNFFLABFTX2M4F2IZE.jpg) weapons are virtually the same. Same Rounds, same magazine size, same fire rate. The biggest (*not only*) difference is how they look. One has a lot of black plastic, the other doesn’t.
Finally, as to why. I am responsible for my own protection, not the state. This isn’t my opinion or a “reason to support gun ownership”, rather the decision handed down by the courts… The police do not have a duty to [protect individual citizens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia). If the state has no duty to protect me, my family , or my property, it clearly rests on the individual.
Because the militia is important, that is why the right to bear arms exists. The right to bear arms is a prerequisite to the existence of the militia, not the other way around.
No. You can own a fully automatic firearm in the US if you’re just a regular citizen. If you can own a pump action shotgun, you can own a machine gun. Unless you live a in state that has heavily restricted your second amendment rights (looking at you California).
It says the right of the people, not the right of the militia.
But taking a more nuanced look, people seem to overlook the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Yes, the first ten Amendments have their own Preamble. It states in part:
>THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The Second Amendment, as I read it in context with this Preamble, is both declaratory and restrictive. In other words, I interpret it as *because a free state requires a militia, the government will not infringe upon the people’s right to own firearms.* For whatever purpose people need to own firearms, the writers of the Constitution viewed it as a natural right that government does not have the power to take away.
“The Militia” has commonly been understood to have two parts, organized government militias, which is now legally defined as the national guard, and B) unorganized militias, which is every able bodied citizen that can bear a weapon to defend their country against Redcoats or the Red Army. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to say the government is allowed to have guns because that’s kind of silly, of course the government can have guns. So therefore the intent is citizens should be able to have guns.
The Milita act of 1903 kind of codified this, declaring the “organized militia” is the National Guard, and the Unorganized Milita is every male aged 17-44.
One historical note: The modern federally funded National Guard structure where members go through federal training and have a duel role as state militia/federal reserves was formed in the early 1900s. This reform was passed to increase and standardize training, and to prevent disputes with state governors over which purposes the militia could be used in federal service. States still have the option to have a militia outside the National Guard structure, and many states do have such a force. If the federal courts would attempt to rule that a person had to be affiliated with a “state militia” in order to own a certain type of firearm, all pro-gun states could formally induct anyone they want into their state militia outside of federal control.
There was once a law that required every fighting age man to own a gun, incase they were drafted into the army. But not full auto back then, muzzle loaders.
The Militia is the People, and the people have the right to bear arms.
Now Owning a Machine Gun in the United States works like this, you cannot buy new ones. You need to be an SOT (Special Occupational Taxpayer) to purchase a new machine gun.
If the Machine gun is made before May of 1986 it can be owned by any civilian, however it must be registered.
No.
Also “Regulated” meant well equipped.
Negative
The national defense act of 1916 defines “The militia” to be all able bodied men between 18 and 45 years old and it’s the duty of the government to provide them with weapons. The 2nd amendment isn’t about what we are “allowed” to own, it’s about the government’s duty to provide arms to it’s citizens.
The military is not open to every citizen and, by nature, can not be conflated with rights.