Police say a mother is facing a child endangerment charge after her toddler found a gun in her purse and accidentally fired it in a southern Ohio Walmart store last week
Back in the day "well regulated" meant "well armed and equipped".
So, in order to form a proper defense of the country, any able bodied man could be called up (the militia), and it was necessary this body of men be well armed and equipped.
Well, that's the TEXTUAL reason. There's a SUB-TEXTUAL reason as well:
"It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising. And … James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias — and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts. … The Second Amendment really provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings."
If you go with that reading, then one could argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't require the allowance of privately owned/held firearms at all, but would be satisfied by state, and/or local governments organizing their own "militias", with arms purchased, stored and controlled in much the same way as our national military does, but managed by said militia organization. In such a reading, banning the private ownership and use of firearms could conceivably be enacted without running afoul of the second amendment.
I'm not saying that I propose this or that I think it's a good idea, just that one could make the case.
2008: "Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia."
2010: "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense."
2016: "The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as "bearable arms," even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare."
2022: "New York's requirement that an applicant for an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed pistol or revolver must prove "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” is unconstitutional."
Back in the day “well regulated” meant “well armed and equipped”.
So, in order to form a proper defense of the country, any able bodied man could be called up (the militia), and it was necessary this body of men be well armed and equipped.
You may already know this, but Federalist Paper No. 29 touches on that subject.
"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.
"a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."
Evidently. If this is what people call "well-regulated" these days…
Back in the day "well regulated" meant "well armed and equipped".
So, in order to form a proper defense of the country, any able bodied man could be called up (the militia), and it was necessary this body of men be well armed and equipped.
Well, that's the TEXTUAL reason. There's a SUB-TEXTUAL reason as well:
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment
"It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising. And … James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias — and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts. … The Second Amendment really provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings."
If you go with that reading, then one could argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't require the allowance of privately owned/held firearms at all, but would be satisfied by state, and/or local governments organizing their own "militias", with arms purchased, stored and controlled in much the same way as our national military does, but managed by said militia organization. In such a reading, banning the private ownership and use of firearms could conceivably be enacted without running afoul of the second amendment.
I'm not saying that I propose this or that I think it's a good idea, just that one could make the case.
That's where the current Supreme Court comes in:
2008: "Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
2010: "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
2016: "The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as "bearable arms," even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/
2022: "New York's requirement that an applicant for an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed pistol or revolver must prove "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” is unconstitutional."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
You may already know this, but Federalist Paper No. 29 touches on that subject.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
Federalist 46 as well:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp
"a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."
It's why they push so hard to have that ignored