newb 2A question

[wjc]

Okay, understanding that women were not eligible to be part of the militia because of the historical posture toward women...but we can interpret based on current trends.

You are the militia by virtue of being a citizen.

Any able bodied man between 17-65 was considered part of the unorganized militia.

"Well-regulated" militia meant people who were provisioned and trained regularly for alternate military duty to protect their farms and families.

[Quiet]

... I'm struggling to understand the term "militia".

Per CA laws...
The militia is all able bodied persons from the age of 18-45.


CA MVC 120
The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard, State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the active militia--and the unorganized militia.

CA MVC 121
The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard, the State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia.

CA MVC 122
The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

CA MVC 130
(a) Members of the militia of the state shall not be discriminated against in enlistments, promotions, or commissions on any basis listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12940 of the Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1 of the Government Code, except as otherwise provided in Section 12940 of the Government Code.
(b) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of California that there be equality of treatment and opportunity for all members of the militia of the state without regard to any basis listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12940 of the Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1 of the Government Code. This policy shall be put into effect in the militia by rules and regulations to be issued by the Governor with due regard to the powers of the federal government that are, or may be, exercised over all the militia of the state with regard to positions requiring federal recognition.

[Turbomrdeuce]

I have a quick question, what can we do to fight/stop these bills to pass?

[SgtMerc]

I have a quick question, what can we do to fight/stop these bills to pass?

• sign petitions
• write to your government representatives
• donate money/time/effort to the NRA/CalGunsFoundation (CGF) and others
• be vocal about firearms without being manic or combative.
• Educate people who may not be informed of their rights being infringed
• talk to friends/coworkers/family who are on the fence and take them to the range.

And above all, DON'T DO STUPID STUFF THAT MAKES GUN ENTHUSIASTS LOOK BAD.

[Milsurp Collector]

Here's how I've heard it explained and seem to agree with this -

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, (and the comma here is huge) the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Meaning - Knowing that a well regulated (government controlled) military (Army, Marines...etc) is necessary to defend a free country,

...first it is just stating that a military is necessary to defend democratic state,

I don't believe that the amendment literally means that the people need create militias and thus keep their guns for said militias. I can't imagine that individual militias are the "well regulated" kind that the amendment is speaking of. In this instance I believe that "well regulated" could only come from a country's government.

Thoughts anyone?

You have it pretty much backwards. The Founders were concerned about a standing Federal army ("the military" as you called it) oppressing the states. The militia was not "the military" and the Second Amendment was in no way saying "the military" "is necessary to defend democratic state". It said a militia composed of armed citizens was necessary to protect the security of the states from "the military" (a standing Federal army).

And "well regulated" didn't mean "government controlled", it meant well trained. See http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Anti-gunners use the phrase "well regulated" in the modern sense as you do, meaning "controlled by means of rules and regulations" as a justification for more gun control laws.

The prefatory clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," gives just one justification or reason for the operative clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It isn't the only reason, or a requirement. To help people understand that concept, look at the following:



Would you interpret that to mean only registered voters should be allowed to own and read books? Or that having educated voters is the only justification for owning and reading books?

[phrogg111]

Can someone break down the 2nd Amendment for me? My husband tries all the time, and I'm struggling to understand the term "militia". There are no state militias any longer, so who is the 2nd Amendment for, now? I am as pro gun as they come, and I am constantly reading articles about how conservatives have botched the 2A and it doesn't apply to citizens.

The 2nd amendment reads:

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.

This means:

The right of the people to do something exists.

That something is "keep and bear arms" - or possess, carry, and use, weapons for killing people.

This right shall not be infringed.

This right exists because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Note, however, that the militia has no rights, and only the people have rights.

Well-regulated, in modern terms, means "well-trained, well-disciplined, well-armed" - not well-infringed upon.

Also, as the militia has no rights - and "the people do" - and the militia is necessary to the security of a free state, one would assume, correctly of course, that the people ARE the militia.

And they're right. Anyone who is male, aged 18-45, is registered for the draft. Everyone, however, makes up "the people", and has the right to keep and bear arms.

Note that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - so hunting is not a right, but it is allowed through a loophole. Hunting rifles are only allowed because they are capable of killing people - "ARMS".

So, we know that a well-armed, well-trained, well-disciplined militia, made up of the people, is necessary to the security of a free state. We know that the people are the ones with the rights. We know that the people's right to possess, carry, and use, weapons for killing people, shall not be infringed. Why do they need to make up the militia with their weapons for killing people?

To maintain the security of a free state.

This means that the arms must not only be capable of maintaining the security of a free state, but they must actually be good at maintaining the security of a free state.

All weapons that can assault people are "assault weapons". All of these weapons can hurt people.

All weapons that can assault people are "arms". All of these weapons can hurt people.

Seeing a pattern?

Why do people need weapons for assaulting other people that are as good at assaulting people as an AR-15 or AK-47?

To maintain the security of a free state.

But why AR-15s and AK-47s that kill our children?

Because the enemies of the security of a free state - that's the freedom and security of our society - are armed with guns that make the AR-15 and AK-47 look like range toys.

So, you said you were having trouble understanding the term "militia". Honestly, it doesn't matter - it's the right of the people. The militia is necessary, which is why the people have a right... Guess what? The militia has no rights. The people do. Their rights not only exist, but shall not be infringed.

So, if you're one of "the people", then you don't have to be a member of "a well-regulated militia" in order to have a right that the people have, that shall not be infringed.