4 ms·

> But it doesn't mean that 2A is narrowly scoped to that rationale alone - the journals from the debates over the meaning of the amendment, and other correspond

> But it doesn't mean that 2A is narrowly scoped to that rationale alone - the journals from the debates over the meaning of the amendment, and other correspondence between the participants (which are referenced by the Heller majority opinion, by the way, so they're not just inventing this interpretation) makes it clear that RKBA was seen as applicable on the broadest level: > "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason, Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution This quote is consistently taken out of context to support a radical position on the second amendment. The quote is made in the context of class inclusiveness — he's not suggesting every member of the population was a member of the militia. Furthermore, Congress would define the militia as free, white males 18-45 in 1792 — hardly a broad application. Here is the full quote: "Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, etc., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government. If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they are. But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered."

int_19h 7y ago
> Congress would define the militia as free, white males 18-45 in 1792 — hardly a broad application It's a very broad application, when you consider that it is exactly the set of people who had any political rights at the moment (i.e. voting citizens), who were also deemed fit to serve. FWIW, Congress eventually passed the Militia Act of 1903 (same one that established the National Guard and the State Defense Forces), which gave a revised definition that is still in force today, and which dropped the "white" requirement - but kept the "male" and the age range, because those were still deemed the basic criteria for any kind of military service at the time. It would make sense to update it again to remove the "male" part - but we'd probably have to fix the draft to apply to all genders equally, first. Not that any of it matters. The point is that militia duty was the most important reason to protect RKBA from the states' perspective, hence why it was the one that ended up in the text - but that doesn't mean that it strictly defines the scope of the right. Again, looking at the state constitutions at the time, of those that are explicit about the scope of the right wrt individual self-defense, all include it, and none exclude it. The same people who wrote those, also drafted the national constitution. It would be rather surprising if they suddenly decided that it means the opposite in that case - and, indeed, from the minutes of the conventions, we know that they did not.
- arrosenberg 7y ago
  > It's a very broad application, when you consider that it is exactly the set of people who had any political rights at the moment (i.e. voting citizens), who were also deemed fit to serve. That's very explicitly not a broad application, which was exactly my point. It's a very narrowly defined group of people who can be "trusted" to perform their militia duty. If we are to follow that original intent, we absolutely have a right to qualify those who keep and bear arms to people who can be trusted to faithfully execute their duty. This group does not includes "all the people, excluding some political officers". I always find it amusing when the same people who argue for originalism also place all kinds of qualifiers, inferences, and mind-reading around that intent, as you have done here. If militia service wasn't an important idea to include in the wording in order to gain consensus, they wouldn't have included it. Some states wanted militias to keep slavery in check, others valued individual rights, and others yet wanted to make sure they could repel the British if they came back. It's a bit arrogant to try and assign any one motive to a diverse group like the founders. Not that any of it matters. It's a piece of paper that's open to interpretation. Currently we are stuck with a radical interpretation, but any reasonable person can see how that policy is failing us, and the popular will exists to change it.

int_19h 7y ago

> Congress would define the militia as free, white males 18-45 in 1792 — hardly a broad application It's a very broad application, when you consider that it is exactly the set of people who had any political rights at the moment (i.e. voting citizens), who were also deemed fit to serve. FWIW, Congress eventually passed the Militia Act of 1903 (same one that established the National Guard and the State Defense Forces), which gave a revised definition that is still in force today, and which dropped the "white" requirement - but kept the "male" and the age range, because those were still deemed the basic criteria for any kind of military service at the time. It would make sense to update it again to remove the "male" part - but we'd probably have to fix the draft to apply to all genders equally, first. Not that any of it matters. The point is that militia duty was the most important reason to protect RKBA from the states' perspective, hence why it was the one that ended up in the text - but that doesn't mean that it strictly defines the scope of the right. Again, looking at the state constitutions at the time, of those that are explicit about the scope of the right wrt individual self-defense, all include it, and none exclude it. The same people who wrote those, also drafted the national constitution. It would be rather surprising if they suddenly decided that it means the opposite in that case - and, indeed, from the minutes of the conventions, we know that they did not.

arrosenberg 7y ago
> It's a very broad application, when you consider that it is exactly the set of people who had any political rights at the moment (i.e. voting citizens), who were also deemed fit to serve. That's very explicitly not a broad application, which was exactly my point. It's a very narrowly defined group of people who can be "trusted" to perform their militia duty. If we are to follow that original intent, we absolutely have a right to qualify those who keep and bear arms to people who can be trusted to faithfully execute their duty. This group does not includes "all the people, excluding some political officers". I always find it amusing when the same people who argue for originalism also place all kinds of qualifiers, inferences, and mind-reading around that intent, as you have done here. If militia service wasn't an important idea to include in the wording in order to gain consensus, they wouldn't have included it. Some states wanted militias to keep slavery in check, others valued individual rights, and others yet wanted to make sure they could repel the British if they came back. It's a bit arrogant to try and assign any one motive to a diverse group like the founders. Not that any of it matters. It's a piece of paper that's open to interpretation. Currently we are stuck with a radical interpretation, but any reasonable person can see how that policy is failing us, and the popular will exists to change it.