Hacker News Reader

Comment by s1artibartfast | Hacker News Reader

my understanding is the exact opposite. how odd.

>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.

Well regulated means well armed. Militia means citizen army, and the people means the people.

It is hard to come to a different understanding of the amendment without redefining these terms.

My understanding is that those favoring a living constitution focus on the purpose or why of the amendment was there, and and that a citizen militia is not longer necessary.

View on HN

> Well regulated means well armed

How do you figure this? Is there judicial precedent for this particular interpretation?

Historically military slang referred to the “regulars” which was the way to say “they guys you call upon to get dirty” and would mean different things depending on the army… a British regular would be a redcoat conscript, a US regular would be a militia volunteer from one of the colonies.

Guns were not issued to citizens, but were owned personally. It makes sense that the resulting law would read “we want the ability to have a militia and have those guys bring along their guns”. Especially because there was no standing army at the time, it was envisioned that the US Army was simply a way to refer to a conglomeration of state militias, not an organized Army.

There seems to be some (literary, rather than judicial) precedent for that meaning of the expression, but on the other hand I haven't seen conclusive arguments as to why they would have chosen that particular turn of phrase to say something other than "governed by rules."

Consider another part of the US Constitution, the Commerce clause: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

In this case "Regulate" is clearly used to mean the action of setting rules. It's a bit weird that they would use that word again in a legal context to mean something non-legal.

Even if it were taken to mean regulate, in terms of rule setting, you still have to deal with the fact that the right is assigned to "the people", and not the state militias.

The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.

These instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

As the SCOTUS found in Heller, The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

See The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment[1].

[1]: https://www.constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.ht...

It definitely means a well organized militia, like the ones they use to defend Switzerland, which every male belongs to and has to go through a year or two of conscription before they take a gun home.

A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to keep and eat food, the balanced breakfast or the people?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com