Reply #231: Clear as mud is any concensus on what defines "Militia".

[NYC_SKP]

I agree insofar as the interpretation of "militia" largely determines the application of the amendment.

I do not, however agree with the statement, "No one's ever had a problem with militias or their contemporary successors in the National Guard keeping and bearing firearms."

IMO, the National Guard became so nationalized as to no longer resemble what would have constituted a "well regulated militia" in 1791.

Scholars, jurists, and citizens will struggle and argue that point for years to come.

Personally, and given my sense of conditions at the time of the drafting and adoption of the Bill of Rights, I feel that a militia might not have to already be established to "qualify", and that what they had in mind was that ordinary citizens should be equipped to form a militia should events develop that would necessitate the formation of a militia to ensure the security of a "free state".

Of course, every word in the amendment is open to interpretation and becomes the basis of any number of arguments. It fascinates me!


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.