Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

1
Max129 here ... and as we used to say on USENET, I just put my asbestos suit on :-)

Here is the big picture of this post:
- The 2nd Amendment states "... a well regulated militia ..."
- IMO, the Federal Government makes poor proxy for a "regulator"
All of us in favor of the 2nd Amendment should work towards a working, non Federal option

I am aware of the "TL;DR" mode of thinking. As long is the "D" is not a "C" as in "Too Long; Can't Read"

Here is the point of my post: I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I have only one wish - I wish they had specified the "who" in "well regulated militia." In general, whether in the financial world, the medical world, or the industrial world, "well regulated" does not mean "self regulated."

I know I am in conflict with myself on this. I adhere to Libertarian ideals, but safety is darn important to me. I would not wish to fly on a "self regulated" airline.

I am certainly not a fan of the US Federal Government being "the regulator", but we all must admit to a problem. I really doubt we all want the exact same regulations to apply in the Montana wilderness as may apply in the South Side of Chicago, or in a Court of Law, etc. (Many may disagree. Differences of opinion are welcome. I respect the view of all rational folks.)

So that would normally leave "the regulator" to the States - heaven help us. The crazy quilt patchwork of State level firearms laws is a mess. (Here is an example: I live in Las Vegas. The high rise condos in which I live allow firearms - it's in the HOA. But some joker put this sign on the door to the roof-top pool complex. http://b29.s3.amazonaws.com/sign.jpg - in case they block URLs, it is a no firearms sign and uses as its authority Code 430 ILCS 66/65). Wow! The sign says there is a regulation stating I cannot carry a firearm here! So look it up. It is an Illinois Concealed Carry code. The sign is in Nevada. The joker who hung the sign either picked the wrong sign or is knowingly obfuscating to get control of people.

And the rub is that our Country has no borders between States. I myself live in the "Free State of Nevada" and I have a CCW permit. When I drive South to Lake Havasu, a short piece of the road crosses into California. Every time I drive, I am forced to decide if I should pull over, disarm and lock my firearm(s) in the trunk unloaded.

Thus far, I have simply driven armed for a short drive in California. Not recommended. All that needs to happen is for a CHIP Officer to stop me and I could become a convicted felon. Now, why am I so stupid or stubborn? Well, I try to be neither. The fact is that there needs to be a warning sign 500 yards before the border and a place to pull over and lock up your firearms.

The same with the "No Firearms" signs on Casinos. As advised by my lawyer, I simply carry (my EDC is small and easily concealed). Am I breaking the law in Nevada? No. But, I could be told I am trespassing and ordered never to return.

Again, why am I so stubborn or stupid? Well, there is no provision to check my firearm in a Casino. Their fall back position is that I "lock it in my car". Oh, so now I have to have a car? I do own one, but I never drive it anywhere near the Strip. But Casinos, and bars that disallow firearms make no provision for the safe and secure checking of firearms. At least in the old West, when a sheriff banned firearms in town, they had a place to check your weapons.

The above may seem like childish snivels. In fact, they impact my life as a CCW permit holder every day. And I suspect I am not alone. Does your employer ban your possession of firearms at work? What if you work in a remote office? (I will bet you the rules are unclear.)

Can you carry while in a Hospital? (State rules vary.) Are the pop-up clinics in pharmacies "hospitals" under the law?

Sound like I'm crazy? I prefer to say, "I just think about it."

My point is that none of us (especially me) wants the BATF to make one set of regulations for the whole Country. (Ever been to Alaska? I lived there for two years. Just imagine the BATF rules in Alaska. Funny.)

But we do need some respectable, fair entity to define the "regulations" in "well regulated". I am aware that many of my brothers and sisters in arms would prefer "no regulation."

I spent several years in the USMC. I assure you, the military is all about "well regulated" when it comes to firearms. The rules are mostly reasonable, well defined and practical. When I was in the Military and assigned briefly to Kodiak Island TAD, I saw first hand the common sense military in action. On Kodiak, one is a fool if one does not carry. Forget the bears: the real dangers are feral dogs and more feral people. There were two highway patrolmen for the island, and 120 miles of road.

So on Kodiak, you 'had' to carry. But many of the bars had 'no firearms' rules. But, and I am not kidding, they also had a sign that said 'gun check counter at side door.' And on the Military Base, no-carry zones, such as the Hospital where I worked, had a special desk to check firearms. Since so many people on Kodiak carry, it was a very busy place. But everyone acknowledged that on Kodiak, you must carry, and in the hospital, you cannot carry. Thus the gun check desk.

So, is this a ramble or do I have a point?

My point is that if we, the gun owners, want to world to make sense we have only two choices:

1) Pick a State with laws we like and live there; leave as seldom as possible.
2) Advocate for the reciprocity States to align all of the above rules and include a provision that if a government or private residence prohibits firearm carry, they must provide a convenient, safe, non-intrusive place to check firearms, no car required, and no making the gun check a mile away by foot. If places want to prohibit guns, let them have the right, but they must carry the burden of the inconvenience to legal firearm owners.

Because my lifestyle cannot get its head around option (1) above, I would really like to see some movement in option (2).

Frankly the current reciprocity map is getting pretty good. Getting aligned regulations should not be that difficult.

Practical proposals are solicited ...



"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Image

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

2
OK, several years ago I took an Appleseed shooting workshop. They sort of mix a rifle skills class with a history class, starting with Paul Revere's ride and ending with the first battle of the Revolutionary War. According to Appleseed, Paul Revere did NOT say "the British are coming." At that time they all considered themselves to be British. What he said was, 'The Regulars are out!" Regulars were men that had had some shooting and/or military training. The term Regulars is related to the term 'Regulators' and 'regulated'. Hence, the 2nd Amendment really says, "a well trained militia" in the vernacular of the time it was written.
So instead of a bunch of dumbass laws that do nothing to stop school shootings, there could be a requirement for training. This training might serve to sort out the serious from the wannabes. Personally I like the idea of a training class. Too many people walk into a gun store, buy a gun, ask the salesman how to load it, and walk out the door.....an accident waiting to happen. Waiting for a class could be better than a proverbial 'cool down' period. How many times have I seen a het couple walk into a gun store. The guy says, "my wife/girlfriend needs a gun." The salesman leads the woman to the Sig 238 display. She walks out with one and drops it in her purse. She has no idea how to work it, and will never take it to the range.
All religions united with government are more or less inimical to liberty. All, separated from government, are compatible with liberty.-Henry Clay
Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.—Aristotle

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

3
This has been hashed out many times here. A good place to start would be to read the "Federalist Papers", with special attention to #45 and #46. Written by the people who were actually there at the time. Thus may we understand the intent of the people who actually wrote the Constitution and the amendments...


"In every generation there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be masters." — Daniel Webster

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

5
@Hiker - good response. We agree.

@rascally - I respect your answer, and I have been reading former posts on this site for a year now. (I finally untrolled myself today).

I went to a "Public Ivy" - I took an entire course on the Federalist Papers, and I got an "A" :-) First, and I mean no offense here, the "originalist" argument for the authors of the US Constitution allowed for the 3/5ths compromise and did not grant women the franchise. The US Constitution neither provided for, nor denied "Income Tax". They may not have had a complete and fair system designed yet.

Together Essay 45 and Essay 46 argue that a strong central government need not diminish the power of the States. Experience may be teaching us another lesson. But in any case, my proposal is neglected from the Federalist Papers, namely for a majority of the States (in number, not population) to band together to create their own "super" regulator for the 2nd amendment. Why? To block having the Federal system act as a regulator. The problem with the Federalist Papers argument is that is only solves in-State issues, and not in a uniform way. The problem I am describing is the multi-State problem. Essentially I am arguing for Inter-State regulation commonly agreed without any input from the Federal Government.

The default answer is supposed to be the US Senate and House, but, referring back to Essays 45/46 why can't the States take collective, non Federal action?

This map is compelling:
https://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carr ... _maps.html

First, many of the reciprocity States are contiguous. (Poor New Hampshire)

So what is missing is a "Collective Action" model from a collection of States. There are some precedents, but the history is messy. The most common way the States agree is for several Attorney's General to collaborate on a common lawsuit. Yech.

Look, New York and California will simply not play ball. Nor will Massachusetts or New jersey. Hawaii is on its own. But most of the remaining States could take some common action. What is needed is a single template law for legal carry that includes @Hiker's training requirement (with which I completely agree, and I know many do not.) And then to extend "reciprocity" such that the laws are aligned enough to avoid carry mistakes. Right now, my NV carry permit allows me to legally carry in many States; but there is a caveat: I better know every little State by State variance in the laws. Frankly, this is not a system that works.
Image

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

7
@CDfingers I have always kept to the meaning of "well regulated" as "well run" - substituting that with "well trained" is by by no means a stretch and was clearly stated in the majority opinion of 'District of Columbia v. Heller.'

So, using an industrial model with which I am familiar, I would restate my proposal to be "a standard model of multi-State training and certification" that allows for the free movement of "well trained" persons who have a legal right to bear arms.

It seems from your feedback and that of others that members of the forum feel this has been "hashed out". Perhaps I have missed this in my reviews; I simply have not found much here written about the cross-state, multi-state regulations. Maybe it is the search function on the site. What I have found is many well stated comments on the limits of reciprocity.

Perhaps the single most compelling argument I find on the forum against my proposal for a single set of "training" / "regulated" rules is that it puts all the eggs in one basket. That is, if there is a national consensus, then there is a single place for the antis to attack and whittle away at rights. I would argue that this is a paranoid position, but you can be paranoid and dead right.

Back to thinking about the bigger issues ... thanks much for your feedback. Much appreciated.
Image

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

8
max129 wrote: Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:10 am So, using an industrial model with which I am familiar, I would restate my proposal to be "a standard model of multi-State training and certification" that allows for the free movement of "well trained" persons who have a legal right to bear arms.


I think the ninth and tenth amendments spell out the powers of the federal government over the states, and the power the states have to themselves. The states have quite a bit of leeway when it comes to laws within the state with respect to firearms, mostly because the SCOTUS has yet to take a case wherein we finally find the definition of "to infringe." I think the State of California infringes upon the RKBA, but its laws have not yet been federally challenged successfully.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

10
max129 wrote: Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:05 pm Max129 here ... and as we used to say on USENET, I just put my asbestos suit on :-)

Here is the big picture of this post:
- The 2nd Amendment states "... a well regulated militia ..."
- IMO, the Federal Government makes poor proxy for a "regulator"
All of us in favor of the 2nd Amendment should work towards a working, non Federal option
No, there is no need to look for a non-Federal option, because well regulated was never about 'regulation'. In the time the 2A was written, 'well regulated' meant that the citizenry were equipped and trained - they were able to employ their arms to defend themselves, their family, their village, their county, their state, and their nation.

The early citizens had firearms and made sure they knew how to use them. They knew the 'helping hand' they needed could be found on the end of their arms. It never was about states rights or any other BS people keep trying to add to the stew.

TL;DR - GIGO.

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=22897&p=597164
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=37535&p=529669
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=37529&p=529787
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=34250

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

11
I think you are confusing the right of an individual be armed in public with the right of citizens to form a militia. The Supreme Court ruled in 1886 that, despite what the 2nd amendment clearly says, states can ban citizens from forming well-regulated militias.

"Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886),[1] was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that "Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States." It states that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the states, and that the right to peaceably assemble was not protected by the clause referred to except to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In this 1886 case, Herman Presser was part of a citizen militia group, the Lehr und Wehr Verein (Instruct and Defend Association), a group of armed ethnic German workers, associated with the Socialist Labor Party. The group had been formed to counter the... private armies of companies in Chicago.[2]

The indictment charged in substance that Presser, on September 24, 1879, in the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, "did unlawfully belong to, and did parade and drill in the city of Chicago with an unauthorized body of men with arms, who had associated themselves together as a military company and organization, without having a license from the Governor, and not being a part of, or belonging to, 'the regular organized volunteer militia' of the State of Illinois, or the troops of the United States." A motion to quash the indictment was overruled. Presser then pleaded not guilty, and both parties having waived a jury the case was tried by the court, which found Presser guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of $10.

Basically, Presser,

In December 1879, marched at the head of said company, about four hundred in number, in the streets of the city of Chicago, he riding on horseback and in command; that the company was armed with rifles and Presser with a cavalry sword; that the company had no license from the governor of Illinois to drill or parade as a part of the militia of the State, and was not a part of the regular organized militia of the State, nor a part of troops of the United States, and had no organization under the militia law of the United States.

Presser claimed the law violated his rights under the Second Amendment.

In Presser v. Illinois, the Supreme Court stated:

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.

In Presser, the Court reaffirmed its 1876 decision in Cruikshank that the Second Amendment acts as a limitation upon only the federal government and not the states. Cruikshank and Presser are consistently used by the lower courts to deny any recognition of individual rights claims and provides justification to state and local municipalities to pass laws that regulate guns.

However, the high court stated that there is a limit upon state restriction of firearms ownership, in that they may not disarm the people to such an extent that there is no remaining armed militia force for the general government to call upon:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.

The Court emphatically disposed of Presser's argument that there exists a right to assemble, drill, or march in a militia independent of authorization by state or federal law:

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois

Pretty tortured logic.... This would mean your state government could restrict free speech, regulate religious organizations and abolish your right to a jury trial in state courts, if they wanted to do that, since the U.S. Constitution only applies to the federal government. While upholding the right of individuals of be armed, in this case the Supreme Court banned the 'well-regulated militias' explicitly mentioned in the 2nd amendment, so the Bill of Rights can change its meaning to fit whatever interpretation is convenient at the moment, sort of like in 'Animal Farm', except that in the U.S. you don't even have to edit the document. Note that it was still ok for the Pinkertons to have their private militia for dispersing striking workers and attacking union organizers. Presser should have reorganized his group as a private security company hired by labor unions to protect their members.
"When and if fascism comes to America... it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism'." - Halford Luccock
"Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."
— Mikhail Bakunin

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

13
The 2nd amendment could have easily said, "Government-regulated Citizen Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But it doesn't.
"When and if fascism comes to America... it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism'." - Halford Luccock
"Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."
— Mikhail Bakunin

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

16
Wow! This is one of the more fascinating discussions I've seen here..and so many are!

The argument that the restrictions apply only to the Federal Government and not to the states should have been settled by the 14th Amendment. Section 1 reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Thus, the rights guaranteed in the BOR, the main body of the Constitution, and in the subsequent Amendments apply to ALL citizens regardless of their states.

I think the argument that "Well-regulated" means merely "well-trained" is a really long stretch. While language has changed quite a bit since 1787, it hasn't changed that much. It's also totally illogical that they would have written a clause allowing for private armies outside the control of Federal, State, or Local governments. And, right from the beginning, President Washington was forced to put down such armed rebellions.

Just at a guess, the Presser decision was also an anti-Union decision. Throughout the "Gilded Age" the tycoons employed, as noted, private armies. These were used to suppress dissent, steal land, cheat employees out of their pay, prevent them from leaving company towns because of their "debts" that could never be paid off, and were no different than extortion thugs in ghettos and 3rd world nations. The Pinkertons, founded by Alan Pinkerton, who founded the Secret Service after President-Elect Lincoln's life was saved by a serious Southern threat, went on to become the PREMIER thugs of the tycoons.

Obviously, Presser was only trying to organize against them, but, the SCOTUS at the time, like now, was TOTALLY anti-union. Notice they didn't charge or disarm the company goons, just the union men. We are going back into that kind of horror for workers, many of whom voted for it thinking that Trump was their man, when, in fact, he's the boot on their throat.

But back to the hodge-podge of laws. Max, you need to know this about New Jersey: Locking your firearm in your car when you go to a casino isn't enough. If your car is stolen or broken into, and the firearms are taken and used in a crime, YOU will be likely to go to jail. Crazy isn't it? If you take reasonable precautions to secure your guns at home and your safe is broken into and they are stolen, you aren't liable for the results. But your car? That's different!

Legal transport in NJ is fairly limited. First, it must be locked, unloaded, where it cannot reasonably be accessed from the passenger compartment. The ammo must be stored separately (I don't THINK it needs to be locked up), and all magazines must be empty. I'm GUESSING, but it's not clear, that applies to moon clips and revolver speed loaders as well. You can only be transporting it to a range or gunsmith, or legal hunting location (for which you must have a hunting permit). Or out of state in accordance with Federal Law for transport (The New York State Police don't recognize that law and will still arrest you. But NJ does .)

And even if a national CCW reciprocity law is passed, NJ has essentially outlawed all carry permits for ordinary citizens and may STILL be able to avoid reciprocity due to loopholes in the not-yet-passed bill.

Max, much of what you raise is less policy and more implementation issues. There's good, historical reason why a gambling establishment doesn't allow firearms! People who lose don't always take it well and may claim they've been cheated. Guns are clearly a toxic mix in that.

Cruise ships don't allow firearms or knives. Or private booze anymore. I had NCL take a really nice Leatherman Wave. They were supposed to hold it for me but, Whoops! somehow, "magically", it could never be found!

The problem with a reciprocity act is, as you obliquely noted, the appropriateness of concealed or open carry aren't universal. One would expect a farmer in Wyoming, with a sheep or cattle farm would need to be able to defend against animal predators. Rural areas where LEOs cannot get to in a timely fashion would also be reasonable. But I'd be really nervous about guns in bars in NYC. A NY Giants player, Plaxico Burris, shot himself in the leg in a bar with an illegal hand gun. We all know guns and alcohol are a deadly combination. Just as an example.

I could go on and on (I guess I have already) but I'll stop here.

"TL, DR"
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

17
Thanks to everyone for your input. This has been an interesting run through of the learning I have gone through the past 10 years. And I confess, I have learned many new things in addition.

YankeeTarheel, your insights into the NJ laws remind me of the complexity of gun ownership in CA. As a person who owns property in more than one State, I seem to bump into the walls WRT CA regulation. For example, my primary residency is in NV, but I own property in San Francisco. According to CA Law, I am required to fill out this form for each firearm:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agwe ... 991frm.pdf

You might notice that you must have a California ID to do so (or a Military ID). If you try to apply for a CID (the non driving license ID) they will tell you that you cannot have one because you have a valid drivers license in another State. In effect, you -must- complete BOF 4010A to store a firearm in CA, but you -cannot- do so unless you have a CA ID. There is no requirement regarding being a resident in the code, but it is impossible to complete the paperwork as a multi-State resident. I am aware that many people suffer far greater hardship :-)

In the big picture, I need to 'write off' California as a potential gun owning State for myself. But the purpose of my post here was to start a rational discussion on this item:

http://theliberalgunclub.com/stances-on-regulation/
" ... So long as permits are the law of the land, there should be some uniformity to them, allowing for a national reciprocity framework."


and

"We favor minimum standards based national CCW reciprocity"

I have a bias towards the "uniformity framework" statement in TLGC's stances statements. I acknowledge that much of my motivation is based on my experience as someone who travels, often by car, through the States surrounding Nevada. I am very fortunate (somewhat by design). Other than California (hopeless), I can and do drive to Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming and sometimes Idaho. The reciprocity with NV in these States is quite strong. Colorado is an outlier, and I have never found the reason why, but that is an example of the lack of uniformity writ large.

I have studied the variances in the laws between the surrounding friendly States and they are a bit confounding. My proposal is an attempt to examine what would it be like if the various carry friendly States aligned on the many little rules that regulate where one can carry, lock up requirements, banned areas, and, as I have mentioned, "check in" support for banned areas.

I also acknowledge that it is the consensus of the many peoples of this forum that "new laws" are not a solution. I agree. In most cases, the actual regulations I mention are not encoded in law - they are the result of regulatory extensions within each State. Wishing for and working towards uniformity is my goal.

I apologize if I have stated my proposal in such a way that others think I am 'rehashing' old ground. I did a lot of research on the forum and find very little about the 'uniformity' goals, other than a general wish for 'reciprocity'. Well I have reciprocity now within reasonable driving distance; I lack uniformity.

Thanks to all the considered inputs folks here have given.

Details:
There were zero firearms banned signs in the Casinos until after the Mandalay Bay incident. (Well zero in the many Casinos that I visit, which is most.) They started to pop up shortly thereafter. The security people at the Casinos tell me that the high betting whales they love all seem to own CCW and carry. There are even services to store the weapons when they are not in NV (the majority of whales fly in on private jets). Thus the Casinos held back on firearm bans. Is this true? Not sure. But security guards at New York New York, MGM Grand and Mandalay Bay have all told me this without prompting on my part.

Also, I am a mathematician. I can tell you the house odds in the many games I do not play. I live in Nevada. Like many Nevada residents, I have a personal 'no gambling' policy. It makes life easier.

Now bars (serving drinks) is another matter. In my mind, two of the biggest gray areas in personal responsibility are bars with parking lots and carrying while having a drink. I accept the 'designated driver' model - I seldom see it played out in real life.
Image

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

18
YankeeTarheel wrote: Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:08 am
I think the argument that "Well-regulated" means merely "well-trained" is a really long stretch. While language has changed quite a bit since 1787, it hasn't changed that much. It's also totally illogical that they would have written a clause allowing for private armies outside the control of Federal, State, or Local governments. And, right from the beginning, President Washington was forced to put down such armed rebellions.
wrt to the regulation question, I would say that there were the Regular Militia and the Irregular Militia during the war. The Regulars wore uniforms, slept in tents, and drilled so they could maneuver effectively as a group. The Irregulars were the farmers and other rural folk who did not train often, as they were farming and so on. The Regulars were paid but the Irregulars often weren't. They wanted the Regulars to be well-regulated so as to ensure the security of a free state.

When looking at the Second, I think it important to explore what is meant by a "free" state. I see free vs slave, and that was and remains an influence block in Congress, a block which led to the American War of 1861. So, the security of a free state may in fact guard against the forces that eventually led to conflict in 1861. It is interesting to speculate whether the States' regulations with respect to their own militias lies at the bottom of "well-regulated" when we consider the slavery question and border states.

wrt the Fourteenth, both Heller and McDonald incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states, but we haven't see that enforced, especially in my state of California.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

20
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
This is the sense of "well-regulated" in the parlance of the times. Meaning "Well-functioning", "operating to specification", "possessing all necessary features and faculties."
A well-regulated mind is one learned in the art of reason, even-tempered and able to make judgements recognizable by one's peers.
A well-regulated pocketwatch tells the time accurately, winds well, and is not damaged or missing pieces that would hamper its function.
A well-regulated militia is equipped with arms, ammunition, the tools to maintain arms, the attire and equipment necessary to carry out one's duty.

The original argument uses the meaning "control" or the "administration of discipline", for the phrase "well-regulated."
Ergo: The second premise does not follow, and neither the conclusion.

US Code Title 10§246.1
(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.
Thereby I am a member of the unorganized militia, and in order to serve in it, my right to arms is not to be infringed. Many argue that the prefatory clause does not have any connection other than to contextualize the operative clause, and therefore it doesn't matter whether the unorganized militia is defined or whether I am a part of it, that I am still granted the right to bear arms outside of that context.
I say that the right to life, liberty and property already incorporates the right to self-defense, and that the use of arms in self-defense is an inalienable right of all persons. The authors also saw that disarmament preceded the encroachment of tyranny, so it did in the colonies and before those, in the territory of the kings of Europe. This too is argued in the federalist papers number 46, that the states and people should not be oppressed by the
federal standing army.

As for central "regulation", we already have the organized militia, and as max129 rightly and succinctly tells it is exceptionally disciplined. I thank them for their service. I think the military is great, and especially the National Guard.

I believe strongly in the resilience of distributed systems. Centralization of power breeds corruption and centralizes risk. A centralized system can have its command and control apparatus attacked, subverted, or corrupted. A distributed militia without central authority is resilient to corruption and attack. A localized corruption can be corrected with by peer organizations, and any attempt to undermine the strength of the disorganized militia would have to be an attack on citizens, thus the current push for gun control is an attempt to weaken the disorganized militia.

Now for the topic of "minimum standards based national CCW reciprocity," this I agree with, but what does it mean fundamentally? The constitution and many state constitutions imply or explicitly guarantee the right to life, and the defense thereof. Concealed Carry is the means by which citizens ensure their ability to defend themselves. Thus one should be able to carry a concealed weapon wherever one may need to practice self defense.

I wouldn't worry about rehashing old ground. Working through these debates is good exercise for the mind and the club.
That's enough monologue from me, a few questions for the forum:
Is there a need to control how and whom may defend themselves?
Is there something exceptional about firearms which necessitates further control?
How can the control be reconciled with the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, which shall not be infringed, and the inalienable right to self-defense?

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

21
Handily, we have some positions that speak to this:

We are in favor of mandatory safety testing as a condition of licensing for CCW

Demonstrating proficiency is less expensive for the applicant than mandatory training, we believe this mitigates any arbitrary financial barriers to a permitting process. So long as permits are the law of the land, there should be some uniformity to them, allowing for a national reciprocity framework.

We favor minimum standards based national CCW reciprocity

In our opinion, this preserves states rights and doesn’t impose standardless permits on states that don’t want them.

http://theliberalgunclub.com/stances-on-regulation/
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

22
Why is it the second gets this sort of review and not the other amendments in the bill of rights? I say it's only because people are making a specious claim in an effort to undermine it. Apply any of the same logic to the other amendments and it would be dismissed out of hand.

You're only allowed to exercise your free speech if you get a university degree that includes proper English courses.

You're only allowed the freedom of religion if you've gone to divinity courses.

You don't have to quarter military members if you've proven you're a valid citizen of good standing.

etc., etc.

The Bill of Rights are individual rights of the citizens, not to be restricted by the state, the only reason to believe otherwise and to pick away with semantics is because the person wants to take a way the rights of individuals protected by the constitution without going through the impossible task of a constitutional amendment.

They would have never bothered to draft the Bill of Rights except they new people would at some time pervert the constitution and forget that it's purpose was to restrict the state and not the individual. If you view the constitution from that aspect, that if in doubt, the individual is always above the group, everything makes more sense and you begin to see the ulterior motives of the authoritarians. The 2A is not the only under attack and will not be the last.
Brian

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

23
inomaha said:
Why is it the second gets this sort of review and not the other amendments in the bill of rights? I say it's only because people are making a specious claim in an effort to undermine it. Apply any of the same logic to the other amendments and it would be dismissed out of hand.
I totally agree. Like many Americans, I was raised hearing that the 2nd Amendment was a relic. I believe I first heard this in High School in Virginia. I was also taught that it really meant 'State organized Militias.' But moreover, I must have read hundreds of similar implications in magazine and new articles over the years.

What was never addressed was the following:
  • It was placed 2nd right after Free Speech - it may have taken them many drafts, but it ended up as #2 in a list of 10 very important topics
  • It is crystal clear that the other 9 in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. The Founding Fathers may be imperfect, but they were a pretty organized thinking lot. They would not have accidentally squeezed in a "collective" restricted "Right" as the 2nd amendment by accident. I have read, studied and it all makes perfect sense to me that the 2nd amendment is a mostly unrestricted and individual right.
Now for the bad news: The re-education machine works. Not everyone is on-board with the fact that the 2nd amendment is not a relic, and is conferred to each individual.
Image

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

24
Bardo wrote: Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:41 am Its like trying to figure out the bible. I can see why it took 7 years of fighting to get it in there....
One can get a better understanding of why it took time to get the 2nd in the BoR by reading through the founding documents. One of the major reasons that some were in favor of not including guns in the BoR is because to a man they couldn't see a time when everyone did not have guns - they thought it was redundant.

It's almost like one of the founders came out of a meditation session and said something like, "Guys, that gun rights thing? Umm... We don't have it yet, but later we'll have a place called 'California' - we probably should put the 2A thing in the Bill of Rights." :lol:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests