A Well Regulated Militia: The ORIGINAL INTENT

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. Article ll, Bill of Rights

On every question of construction (of the constitution), let us carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed. Thomas Jefferson June 12, 1823

Nothing has created more debate and dissension than the meaning of the militia and the Second Amendment to the constitution.

The media newswhores, the corrupt con-artists from the District of Criminals and the liberal education (indoctrination) system regularly distort the english language to suit their own socialist agenda. The American public has been dumbed down by the public fool system and the media to the point that most are deceived into believing the lies that equate the word militia with terrorist, extremist, racist and religious fanatic. Most modern day Americans don't have a clue who or what the militia is. Nor do they understand the meaning of the 2nd amendment contained in the Bill of Rights.

Our modern day elected representatives as well as the public at large have no understanding of the proper role of the militia. The militia is the original “homeland defense”and “neighborhood watch”. A careful study of the original intent of the founding fathers show us that the militia is every US male citizen, capable of bearing arms for the “common defense”.

The “common defense” meant defending your country and state from invasion as well as aiding your state government during civil disturbances, unrest, riots terrorist acts. etc.,. by enforcing the “laws” of the union. So, in that sense the militia has a role to act as “military police” to protect their fellow citizens and communities. At the local level, the militia is to serve the community exactly as described in the modern day Neighborhood watch and the CERT programs. And finally, as a last resort, the militia is to resist tyranny and the usurpation of constitutional authority within our own government.

In the original context “bearing arms” meant weapons in “common use” by the military. Further, the founders were clear, that with the right to keep and bear arms comes the responsibility or the civic obligation to serve as militia. Militia service, by law, is mandatory and All members are required to train and equip themselves.


Militia Background
The militia in America predates both the Constitution and the United States government. It was in existence since the beginning of the colonial period. During that time the militia was organized at the local community level and under the control of it’s respective colonial government.

Service in the militia was considered both a right and a civic duty. By law militia service was mandatory. All members were required to provide their own weapons, attend regular training, musters and report for duty when called into service.

The colonial governments could call up the militia for the “common defense” which usually consisted of repelling invasions by the French or the indians. At the local level the militia was the original Neighborhood Watch. They assisted the sheriff by performing “Night Watch or Night Patrols” to protect the community. They were also used in a similar manner as military police during riots or large scale civil disorder.

It is too often assumed that the founding fathers we’re in complete agreement on the use of the militia and the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing could be farther from the truth. During the constitutional convention there were three opposing points of view regarding the militia and the right to keep and bear arms.

Federalist: Strong centralized national government.. Wanted a standing army or “select militia” under federal control. Locally controlled militia’s were considered little more than “a mob”. Right of revolution or resistance to tyranny denied. Right of States and juries to nullify un constitutional legislation denied. Right to keep and bear arms for “the common defense” considered a civic duty and obligation of citizenship. Participation in militia mandatory. Right to keep and bear arms for personal defense considered a “common law” right with no bearing on the militia.

Anti-Federalist: Confederation / Union of States. State control of militia. Right of revolution or resistance to tyranny by the States affirmed. Right of States to nullify un-constitutional federal legislation and the use of militia to resist usurpation.... Right to keep and bear arms for “the common defense” considered a civic duty and obligation of citizenship. Participation in militia mandatory. Right to keep and bear arms for personal defense considered a “common law” right with no bearing on the militia.

Radical Anti-Federalist: Populist democracy. Local control of militia. Right of revolution affirmed.. Right to keep and bear arms a civic duty and obligation. Participation in militia mandatory. Right to keep and bear arms for both the common and personal defense considered a right of the militia.


The Anti-Federalists of the 1780's who opposed a strong Federal government spoke of an armed militia indistinguishable from all the able bodied male citizenry. This militia was to be a great source of and training ground for republican virtue. They drew upon the writings of American and British republican theorists for this view. This universal militia was to be drawn from the local community, under the leadership of men of rank and substance, and subordinate to local elected authority.

These “conflicting themes, developed at the Constitutional Convention and repeated in debates over military policy during the next century, led to a compromise in the text of the Constitution and in later statutory enactments. On the one hand, there was the a widespread fear that a national standing Army posed an intolerable threat to individual liberty and to the sovereignty of the separate states, while on the other hand, there was the recognition of the danger of relying on inadequately trained soldiers as the primary means of providing for the common defense.

The Constitution watered down this concept when it gave the federal government power over organizing, arming and disciplining the militia and even more so, when it gave the federal government rather than the local (state) authority control over the militia when federalized. However, the 1792 Act, as much as allowed for by the Constitution, called for this universal militia. But the states granted widespread exemptions and eventually ended compulsory militia duty. Service in the militia became voluntary and few served.

The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, also grants the federal government through Congress, the power to regulate the militia:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,”

Well Regulated

Of all the words in the Second Amendment, well regulated probably causes the most confusion. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word regulate, which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of regulation. For reference, here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Some in their enthusiasm to belong to a well regulated militia have attempted to explain well regulated by using the definition adjust so as to ensure accuracy. A regulated rifle is one that is sighted-in. However well regulated modifies militia, not arms. That definition is clearly inappropriate.

This leaves us with to adjust to some standard... or to put in good order. Let's let Alexander Hamilton explain what is meant by well regulated in Federalist Paper No. 29:

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, nor a week nor even a month, 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.
--- See The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

To put in good order is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant properly disciplined when describing soldiers:

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

The text itself also suggests the fourth definition ( to put in good order ). Considering the adjective well and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or just the right amount of laws [depending on the meaning of well ] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia?

The phrase well-regulated was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary:

1709: If a liberal education has formed in us WELL-REGULATED appetites and worthy inclinations.

1714: The practice of all WELL-REGULATED courts of justice in the world.
1812: The equation of time...is the adjustment of the differance of time as shown by a WELL-REGULATED clock and a true sun dial.

1848: A remissness for which I am sure every WELL-REGULATED person may blame the mayor.

1862: It appeared to her WELL-REGULATED mind, like a clandestine proceeding.

1894: The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every WELL-REGULATED American embryo city.

Militia Defined:
The word militia is a Latin abstract noun, meaning military service , not an armed group (with the connotation of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term, meaning army or soldiery was volgus militum . Since for the Romans military service included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully translated today as defense service , associated with a defense duty , which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise. from the 3rd Continental Congress website

A body of civilians enrolled as a military force, drilled and trained for defense, but called into active service only in times of emergency. Webster's 1949

The term “militia” also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service.


Now, look at the term, ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Lets define a few more words.

RIGHT: The founders of this country understood that Rights are not government granted privileges to be given or taken away at every political whim. They stated clearly that Rights are unalienable ... meaning Rights are given to man by his Creator, NOT the government and therefore no government may encroach upon them or deny any man his natural born Rights. The Bill of Rights were specificallly written to prohibit the government from violating the rights of the people.

Many people may argue that common sense gun-control laws passed by our legislative body properly grants the government permission to restrict or limit the peoples Right to keep and bear arms. This is a blatant lie. ANY law that violates any part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights is in fact illegal.

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Marbury vs.Madison, 5 US137, 174, 176 (1803)

But to be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form; it is the right to bear arms in defense of the citizens and the state,
that is secured by the constitution, and whatever restrains the FULL and COMPLETE EXERCISE of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is FORBIDDEN by the explicit language of the constitution. Kentucky Supreme Court 1822

People: From the latin populi meaning armed citizens. In Roman times, for a man to become a Citizen with the right to vote, and own property; he had to first serve the Republic by becoming a soldier. In the original context of the Constitution “people” is synonymous with citizen.

Keep: To have, to own or posses a thing.

Bear: Bearing arms, in terms of the common usage of that time, most likely conveyed a military meaning, ie., to serve as a soldier.

The Second Amendment as passed by the House of Representatives read:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

In the conscientious objector clause, bearing arms clearly is intended to convey an exclusively military meaning. The majority of the 1st Congress were lawyers by profession. Standard rules of statutory construction were well established. One of the rules involved, is that when a word or term is used more than once in the same document (let alone the same sentence), it is meant to convey the same, exact meaning. So, it would seem to bear arms had a military meaning. Otherwise, we are talking about different meanings associated with the same word within the same amendment. Highly improbable, again, especially since most of the framers were lawyers.

Note, the drafters did not use keeping and bearing in connection with the conscientious objector clause, although they obviously could have.

Certainly, and usually in conjunction with modifying terms (such as in defense of themselves ) bearing arms was used in a non-military context. However, standing alone, and with no modifiers, it was almost invariably used in a military context. In a legal document, it is not unreasonable to assume bearing arms had a military context, especially with the militia clause preceding it.

Shall: A determination or promise. Inevitability, Command. A directive or requirement. To have to: MUST.

Not: In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal or prohibition.

Be: Make: cause to become.

Infringed: To encroach upon something. (encroach- To intrude gradually on the right or possessions of another. )

Now that you know the meaning of the words lets take a look at what the founders of this country had to say about the subject.

Samual Adams: The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

Thomas Jefferson: No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

John Adams: Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self defense.

MEMBERSHIP:

I ask you sir, who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people except certain public officials George Mason drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights

Further, according to the Supreme Court, the militia is all males capable of acting in concert for the common defense expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves, arms of the kind in common use (by the military) at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment, bearing some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. US vs Miller, 1939

...all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia...the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question (2nd Amend.) out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms... Presser vs Illinois, 1886

The militia is ...the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrection, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers...The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are unsuccessful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the Unied States, 1833

So, the militia is not actually an instrumentality of the state so much as it is "us" defending our homes and families against all threats to our security including those that emanate from the government itself. So, also, we may possess helicopter gunships with electric cannon, so that we may defend ourselves from an armored cavalry regiment sent by an oppressive government. it would be folly to think that we could do that with a musket or a Winchester .270.

The Constitution places no limits on the right to "keep and bear" arms. The US Constitution is not about limits on We the People but about limits placed on the Federal Government. Thus, the Constitution does not limit you in the rate of fire or destructiveness of arms you may "keep and bear". The Courts do this with its rulings, and they know completely well they are in violation of the Constitution.

We do not live under the Rule of Law anymore, but under Policies, Codes, Executive orders, etc. with many in direct violation of the Rule of Law.

To be able to oppose domestic tyranny head on, one must be equally trained and armed as the forces of tyranny. Otherwise a head on confrontation would only lead to unneccessary deaths. The Anti-Federalists of the founding understood this well. The 2nd is their way of addressing this problem.

Have a prosperous and safe new year - 2010...

Things are getting murkier than ever - When was the last time a government official referred to the USA as a "Republic"? Are we getting lost in "New Age Politics"?

Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars'...

Are the DoI, Constitution and BoR just historical documents of little current value or application?

We no longer teach the truth and basics in our schools, everything is under the guise of "proper Social Studies and political correctness" and modern agenda discipline, whatever that means!

My GK's no longer believe me when I speak of history - Greek, Roman, Christian, Empires or truth, honour, discipline, morality, wars, and most disconcerting our own American heritage and history... GK's tell me that is not what our books tell us and after reading some of their text books, they are correct.