Separately, "regulate" didn't mean the same thing then as it does today.

Think about the phrase "well-regulated". When has modern regulation ever been described as "well"? And what would that even mean?

The meaning was intended to be somewhere between well-supplied and well-prepared.

Similar to how "regulate interstate commerce" was intended as to encourage and provide-for, not to limit or restrict.

Well regulated as in a steam engine, which wasn't far on the horizon.

I'd argue that's a result of the historic usage that has persisted, partly because it's compatible, but only in context.

A steam regulator supplies steam from the boiler to the piston/traction, at the desired controlled rate.

It does it via a restrictive valve, but even that's a stretch for it to be considered primarily a retarding device, and not an enabling/ accelerating one.

We don't call a cars gas pedal a deccelerator or fuel-regulator, we call it the gas, or accelerator.

The consistent usage is as a definition of supply.

Is this really the case, that regulated was equivalent to supplied in that context? I don't think it matters in the slightest for the purpose of the second amendment because the militia has no bearing on the power of the government to infringe the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, no matter how well restricted or well supplied it is.

> We don't call a cars gas pedal a deccelerator or fuel-regulator,

The pedal is not the mechanism, that is the throttle (aka fuel / air regulating device, it regulates flow by throttling it). There's people who call the gas peddle the throttle too, although less common. I don't think any of this proves a point about the word regulated in the constitution though.

It's relevant because the 2nd amendment calls for the militia to be well-regulated, (not the arms themselves, or the people), and then goes further, specifically saying the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

And it does so by declaring the well-regulated militia being necessary.

Reading it all consistently, it's consistent with "enabling" and "supplying". There are no other words that even suggest there being a limitation on any party except the federal government.

All other rights in the first 10 amendments are granting rights to the people or states, and restricting the federal government, with any exceptions explicitly stated and conditioned.

Reading "well-regulated" as an open ended grant of authority to the federal government is entirely inconsistent. Especially if that authority is contradicted in the second half of the statement.

Reading "well-regulated" to mean "supply" and "enable" resolves all these inconsistencies and internal contradiction.

If you can read it in a way that makes consistent sense, then that's the way it should be read.

I just don't think the nature of the militia (or even the militia itself really) is particularly important for the second amendment.

The second amendment clearly states that the government does not have the power to infringe on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, and that would be true no matter how you changed the militia clause.

"A rag tag posse of unarmed thugs being unhelpful to the functioning of a monarchy, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This places the exact same prohibition on the government's power to infringe the right to bear arms.

>that would be true no matter how you changed the militia clause.

Right- but that's exactly the point, and why reading it differently is critical.

>A rag tag posse of unarmed thugs

First- the term "militia" also had different meaning back then, and legally, still does, in US law.

It means every "able bodied male". That's it. (It's either the first or very near the first thing codified in US statutes as military law.)

Today, what we call militia is actually organized or semi-organized militia (or even national guard), which is legally and conceptually different.

Think "minutemen" and not "gang".

So it makes even more sense that "regulated" doesn't mean 'control of gangs', but the supplying/enabling of responsible citizen minutemen, implying everyone has some responsibly of military readiness in a free-country.

In that context (and the original desire to not keep a standing army), "limiting" that individual readiness is in direct conflict with the stated intent/benefit.

Which is not to conflate it as the reason individuals have a right to bear arms, but that the right to bear arms is complementary to individual citizens having some level of duty-to-country, to be ready to defend it, if and when called upon to.

If anything, it implies citizens should be armed and that the government can and should enable it, as an enumerated function of government.

Which doesn't imply any authority to control or otherwise restrict an individuals right to bear arms, with the narrow exception of when fulfilling one's role as activated militia, and even then only because of the nature of being subject to chain-of-command.

A 5-4 decision in 2008 that was along predictable lines. Let's not pretend it's a long-settled or non-controversial interpretation.

The two relevant decisions changed no facts on the ground outside of D.C. and Illinois. Reversal won't change anything except maybe the facts on the ground in Illinois, and will further inflame the divisions in the country.

Although you should double check your assertions, some of the details of the decisions were not 5-4.

"I'm out of town this weekend, you can use my apartment" does not grant somebody unlimited permission to use your apartment. The supreme court is working backwards from their conclusion here.

"Guns are good for hunting. All citizens have the right to own and use guns." does not mean only hunters have permission to have guns, nor that people may guns for hunting.

* nor that people may use guns only for hunting.

And not even that people's right to own and use guns would be revoked if it turned out guns were not good for hunting.

Perfect answer. Thanks!