From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Militia's and the right to keep and bear arms
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:27:56 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 438@mtu.edu, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>OK, guys, I've been busy, so I didn't get back to this right away....
>I suggest that the best way to settle this is to look at the Federalist
>papers (available from Project Gutenberg).

You are making my point very nicely for me, but I don't think that you
see it that way.  My view is that the interpretation of the 2nd depended
on who you discussed it with.  Federalists wanted to prevent the militias
from operating independently of the federal government.  The Antifed-
eralists wanted the opposite.  The 2nd was in the middle of the tug of
war between the two (now-defunct) political movements, and the language
had to be made acceptable to both sides.  The First Congress was domi-
nated by Federalists who needed to accomodate the wishes of the Anti-
federalist minority.  Why were Madison's words "free country" replaced
by "free State" in the amendment?  Think about it.  The view that the
2nd only prevents the federal govt. from blocking state militias was
certainly not the only interpetation, but it was also certainly one of
the valid interpretations.  

>...
>HAMILTON
>
>To the People of the State of New York:
>THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its
              ^^^^^^^^^^
> services in times of insurrection and invasion...

This is not the "training" sense of "regulate".

>[...]
> If a well-regulated
> militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought
> certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <why 2 clauses?>
> body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Why 2 clauses?  The Federalist Papers were essays, not laws.  It is
probable that "regulation and disposal" was a rhetorical doublet, 
not unlike "lord and master".  Just the same, this is not the 
"training" sense of "regulate."

>[...]
> 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. [...]

I like this passage.  It associates training *and* evolution with a well-
regulated militia.  If you don't have training, you aren't going to get
a militia which has the *character* of a well-regulated one.  I take the
meaning of "well-regulated" here to mean something like "smoothly run."
Training is a necessary, not sufficient, condition for an organization
to appear to be well-run.  Deny the militia arms, and you can't train it.
It's a bit like saying that a "well-regulated bank" (another term frequently
used back then) needs to keep records.  The issue here is between just
being "regulated" and being "well-regulated".

>What does Hamilton mean "...the character of a well-regulated militia"?
>Could he be refering to a well-trained militia?  Why does he refer to
>it in the same sentence that discusses "military exercises"?  Remember,
>this is from a guy who wanted it under the Feds control (as you suggest
>"well-regulated militia" implies).

Indeed.  And does it appear to you that the current t.p.g. definition of
'militia' fits the bill?  I don't think so.  The National Guard does, but
not the undisciplined body of all males between ages 18 and 45.  It is 
clear that most people were talking about a body of men under the control
of government, be it state or federal.  And that was the real issue back
then--who did the controlling of the militia.

>I think the interpretation we've been using for "well-regulated" is
>correct.  Of course, this is irrelevant, since this clause places
>no restriction on the second clause.

That's odd.  Why bother changing Madison's word "country" into "State" if
that language was unimportant?  The fact is that lawmakers seldom put
extraneous language in legal language.  They debate every word.  If it's
in there, then somebody wanted it there for a reason.  That's why the 
debates over wording get so heated.  Each interest group wants to get 
their message into the language.  The fact is that "whereas..." establishes
then context of the consequent clause.  It tells you what purpose the
arms are for.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns