Reply #70: Does "well regulated" mean disarmed?

[hansberrym]

Or would it mean properly armed?



The preamble to the 1785 Virginia militia act cited in US v. Miller means the same as the first part of the second amendment:

”The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening’s Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared:

‘The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.’

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that ‘All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years...And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.’ Blackstone”
{end of excerpt} (my emphasis)



Note the similarities:

”The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens
properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.”


”A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,...”


The phrase "A well regulated militia" when read in the proper historical context as provided in US v. Miller has the same meaning as the phrase "citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty".

The phrase "the defense and safety of the commonwealth" is similar in meaning to the phrase "security of a free state".

The relationship “ A is necessary to B “ is the same as the relationship “B depends on A”.

Also note who was to “keep” arms in the Supreme Court’s definition of the militia and in the various militia acts cited -including the Virginia Miliita act 1785. which is quoted above.