From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: "Militia" and "People" (was Re: democratic platform)
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:05:39 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1992Jul26.002943.4459@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>>
>>Do you know what the words "well-regulated militia" mean?  Well regulated,
>>according the Oxford English Dictionary, when said of troops, means
>>well disciplined/able in shooting,                    ^^^^^^

>Thanks for doing my work for me. The majority of the people for whom this
>vaunted universal RKBA is being cited are not "troops", in any common-sense
>meaning of the term.

"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."
I think that's it.  However, it is not "...the right of the militia to
keep and bear arms...", which is Kevin's interpretation.  Maybe, instead
of interpreting, he should look at the actual words used.

>>...and "militia" according to the 1792
>>Militia Act meant all free males from 17 to 45.  

>Not women? Not males over 45? Yet again, this hardly sounds like the
>_universal_ right it's hyped up to be...

But the right is the right of "the people", not of "the militia".

>It is a long-standing rule of statutory construction that the meaning chosen
>for a given law should acknowledge that every phrase therein has SOME sort of 
>contributory meaning to the whole. In this instance, one cannot read the first
>clause of the 2nd as being non-restrictive UNLESS one is prepared to interpret
>it as redundant idle chit-chat, and therefore to break the established rule. 
>This rule is usually waived in the case of mere preambles or "mission 
>statements", of course, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't qualify as either of 
>those. I therefore see no reason to refrain from applying the rule in this 
>case.

How about this:

Mission:  to ensure that there is a pool of armed and trained manpower
(the militia) available to defend the freedom of the state.
Method:  ensure that the right of the people _as_ _a_ _whole_ to keep
and bear arms cannot be infringed.

This means that youngsters below "militia" age can use and become 
experienced with firearms, oldsters and other non-combatants (which,
in those gentlemanly days, included women) could own and use firearms
and pass on their skills and experience to the youngsters.  That is
why widespread firearms ownership by "the people", not just "the
militia", is important.  That is what the framers of the 2nd Amendment
recognised.

There's a common assumption that non-military weapons, and non-military
shooting skills, have no military value.  Unfortunately, this assumption
is totally false.  As I have pointed out before, several governments have
encouraged civilian target shooting because it develops a militarily-
useful skill, although a .22 target rifle is about as far removed from
a military weapon as you can get.

>Like I said, I'd be fairly sympathetic to a universal RKBA, but I just don't
>think the 2nd is up to the task as written.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
How much more universal do you want it?

Geoff Miller (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)  |   Don't steal.  The government
Computer Centre                     |   hates competition.
Australian Defence Force Academy    |   (via Jeff Cooper)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns