To note, "well-regulated" had a different meaning when the Bill of Rights was authored than what a contemporary reader may interpret the term to mean. Some context is available here[1].
That just leaves the question of what a well regulated militia in this sense is, how it being well regulated is determined, etc open to legitimate further legislation.
To put it another way, is there constitutional justification for citizens to bear arms for purposes which have nothing to do with a well regulated militia? If so the well regulayed militia qualification has no meaning, right? So what's it there for?
Just curious, fair disclosure I'm a Brit so I have no standing in this.
American here. I just don't understand the line of reasoning used above you.
>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.
If the intent is only a well regulated militia is to own arms why does it specifically call out the people in that way? Isn't "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" the justification for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? Its worded very oddly, if the intent actually was "the right of the government to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." why not say that?
Also, if the intent is to allow only governmental actors to own arms why does that right have to be specifically called out? The purpose of the constitution was to protect the people from government over reach has there ever been a nation where a totalitarian regime prevented his own army and police from having guns against the wishes of his people?
Yes. The second amendment is using the comma as an "and". It means that we have the right to both a well regulated militia and for the citizenry to own and bear arms. It is not for the purposes of conscripting the citizenry into some militia. It is intended for the citizenry to defend themselves, against tyrants and assailants.
If the second amendment was just about having a well regulated militia, then they would not have mentioned the second part about citizens bearing arms.
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's a garbage sentence.
Also, there isn't a 'first part' and a 'second part', because "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is not a complete sentence.
And that meaning of 'well-regulated' is also missing from the armed citizens of today. 'Well-regulated' did not mean the chaos of every-man-for-himself and zero oversight.
Not to mention that the definition of 'militia' as 'all adult men' came from the 1900s, not the 1780s.
I don't know much about America (not from there): do you guys actually have those? I know you have a National Guard, but that's state-run, right? Do the "local militias" referred to in the federalist papers still exist?
Odd thought: would private paramilitary security contractors technically be a "well-regulated militia" in this sense? If the US were attacked in a land war (somehow), would employees of Academi et al be expected to come out to defend their local areas?
The Unorganized Militia as defined in 10 U.S. Code Section 311 is effectively all able-bodied fighting-age male citizens:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
The classes of the militia are--
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Please bear in mind that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
That definition came in well over a century after the Second Amendment was written (1956, as far as I can tell), and so should have no bearing on interpretation of the founders' intent.
