Consider.........

I understand there will be arguments regarding the application of the second amendment today, before the supreme court. This has caused some thoughts to flow in my tired old brain.....

"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. "

The first consideration should be this....... before we do anything else, we must decide whether or not the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have meaning to us, as written. Without this mutual consent, there is no reason to discuss the meaning of the second amendment.

If we stipulate the Bill of Rights is, and should remain, the basis of our rule of law, then we can continue.

If we are so agreed, the next consideration is one of meaning. What does the Second amendment to the US Constitution mean? (Notice, I do capitalize the titles of both documents as I regard them of supreme importance).

Taken by itself, the meaning of the second part seems clear and in keeping with the rest of the document. 'The people' are widely and universally regarded as meaning the individual people making up the citizens of the United States of America. Again, taken by itself, it would seem the second part of the amendment clearly states that individuals shall not have their right to bear arms infringed upon. It is on this that pro-rights supporters hang their hats; the right recognized is an individual right exactly as stated in other amendments.

Yet, the second part does not stand alone. It is preceded by this: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," which modifies the second part of the statement. It is on this modification that others make their case, stating this 'individual right' is a collective right reserved to the states, unlike any other amendment in the Bill of Rights. Therefor the second amendment would not recognize an individuals right to bear arms, but in fact offers no protection at all for an individual.

There is little argument on the meaning of 'The Militia' as it was meant at the time of authorship. It clearly, and only, meant individual citizens who could be called upon to defend self and community against enemies internal and external. This was the custom and law of the time, and still remains enforceable law to this day across most of the United States. In today's parlance 'The Militia' is often construed to mean the states National Guard. The other side of the coin is the ability, by law, of the Federal government to co-opt the National Guard at will, thus rendering them not a state militia, but a federal military. This would negate the 'right' of the states to maintain their sovereign militias, if the guard is really such.

Let us, for the moment, assume the original definition of 'The Militia' as intended by the framers of the Constitution. That will allow us to move on to another term which I think is badly mistreated and misconstrued by modern folk. That would be the words 'Well Regulated', almost universally taken to mean 'controlled by law' as most modern 'regulations' are treated as having the force of law.

Yet, if we are going to debate the meaning of 'The People', and 'The Militia', how can we scamper past the phrase 'Well Regulated' without a second glance?

Many years ago I was in possession of a dictionary, and a very special one it was. Published and printed in London in 1726, it was titled 'a Horseman's and Farriers Dictionary' and covered terms, phrases, and meanings much as modern encyclopedia would. Not only were the meanings of words detailed, but full explanations were offered along with in depth veterinary medical and mechanical descriptions. This book has since passed into the keeping of the Farriers Association, or at least their president of the time some fifteen years ago.

I mention this book, because in enjoying reading it's odd phrasing and spelling, I was given a solid view into the minds of the time. Being a life long shooter and interested in the application of the second amendment, one phrase jumped out to me. It takes little effort to guess; the phrase was 'Well Regulated'.

Taken from a trades manual of the time period during which the Bill of Rights was being written, that phrase meant 'Well Equipped' as in 'A well regulated team of horses shall have reins and traces of good quality and proper length'. It most certainly did not mean 'regulated' as in determined by law, but 'regulated' as in fitted properly and professionally with quality equipment.

If the second amendment of the Bill of Rights is read with the words 'Well Regulated' taken in this light, it throws the whole meaning into fresh territory.

"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. "
now means, in today's terms:
"Properly equipped and armed citizens being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".


Take these examples of 'well regulated' from the time period, as provided by
Brian T. Halonen

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

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 difference 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 will 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."

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. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.



"Properly equipped and armed citizens being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Now that is a horse of a different color.... and worthy of further debate.....
Might I even say...... "Supremely worthy of debate"?