Rhode Island's 1842 constitution, its first, provides “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . ..”.
"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state," is a nominative absolute for those of you who do not know your grammar. The term 'absolute' is used because the entire expression is an independent construction. It forms part of the sentence, but it is not connected to the rest of the sentence grammatically. 'Liberty' is in the nominative case and 'being essential' is the perfect participle. Remember, it is used 'absolutely' or independently and, in this case, relates a (but not the only) reason for the main clause. It could have been restructured as an 'although' or 'because' phrase as in 'Although the liberty of the press is essential...' or 'because the liberty of the press is essential...'. Which meaning was intended? Because it is in the form of a nominative absolute, BOTH MEANINGS APPLY.
The same nominative absolute construction that is used here is used in the Second Amendment. Is this (in Rhode Island's 1842 constitution) the kind of statement that reserves "The liberty of the press" to the State? Are the people allowed to publish only when they are "members of a press organization?" I think that most would agree that the intended meaning is based on the main part of the amendment, “… any person may publish his sentiments on any subject…” which IS NOT restricted by the nominative absolute. With the Second Amendment, the intended meaning is based on the main part of the amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” and IS NOT restricted by its nominative absolute, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”.

Your question is a bit vague (and your post is quite hard to read...), but I will answer.

Question: Given the phrase at the beginning of the Second Amendment, what does the Amendment really mean?

I think your premise is right. The phrase

is not a qualifier, it is simply a rational basis for the statement which follows:


It does not preclude the right based on other factors. It does not restrict the "right" to only certain situations.

The one good point Michael Moore has ever made is that "the right to bear arms" is subject to interpretations because the word "arms" can mean anything from a knife to a nuke. Therefore, the second amendment does not necessarily guarantee the right to own a hand gun or assault rifle.

Per Merriam-Webster:
- bear arms - 1 : to carry or possess arms 2 : to serve as a soldier

The number 1 reference is to carry or posses... which is indeed what a soldier can do... but so can a citizen

I think that this precludes nukes and tanks as well as .50 cal machine guns, bombs, F16 fighter jets, artillery pieces, etc.

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, why can't I own an artillery piece, or even a fully loaded F-16?

According to the dictionary definition you provided, and the way the constitution is written, there should be no question of my being able to own these things. As long as I can find a bank willing to finance the $150,000 for the cannon, or even the $30 million for the plane, that is.

Back to reality, though, we all agree there has to be some kind of reasonable restrictions on what can be owned. That's where the rub is. What's reasonable?

There are some who advocate no restrictions at all as to what they own, gun-wise, and others who say we must have a lot of restrictions, to keep massive fire power out of the hands of crooks.

Some say there can be no hinderance of time in terms of obtaining a weapon, because they may need the gun right now! Others that say we must have a weeks waiting period, to keep hot heads from going into any sporting goods store, picking up a gun, and killing their neighbor, because the neighbor's dog ate their petunias. As funny as it sounds, I've heard radicals on both sides argue pretty much these identical arguments. Who's right?

Correct.

As SCOTUS has said; the right to keep and bear arms is not dependant in any way on the Constitution for its existance.

That's what has been so puzzling to me. If it is settled that the right exists regardless and irrespective of the words chosen to secure it, how can those words then be interpreted to restrict, diminish or by some interpretations, extinguish the individual right to arms?

The fact is that infringing on the right to bear arms is not one of the powers designated to the federal government under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

This is one of the two most poorly worded items in our constitution and bill of rights- I am for responsible gun ownership, but we don't really have that in America. There are more regulations to get a drivers license, and more testing.

We should have 2 constitutional amendments, one that says "freedom from religion" and "responsible gun owner ship is okay, as long as you pass this test and agree to these conditions"

That would solve the problem!

Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: circa 1660
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

I am not against guns, although I think the laws on gun control should be more strictly enforced.

Let us first look at the full and exact wording of the Second Amendment.


The Second amendment of the Bill of Rights states: "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."

It talks of a state and a militia. This amendment was passed in the year 1791 and a year later, the Uniform Militia Act was passed. This act made it mandatory for males of the correct age to join official armed force of the state. This seems parallel with the amendment, showing that the wording was intended for official bands of soldiers, and not for the individual.

Within a few decades of starting these militias, states eliminated them. Therefore, the individuals in the police force and military should have been the only citizens with access to guns.

These points I have made are exerpts from an essay I have written on the topic, so here is the main source I used for that paragraph...

Simmons, Robert. "The Myth of the Second Amendment." San Diego Union-Tribune. 27 January 1997. Gun Control. Opposing Viewpoints series. Farmington Hills, Michigan: Greenhaven Press, 2003. 68-72.

*Just a reminder this is not necessarily what I believe, I just wanted to show the context in which the amendment was written because most people don't know about the background and history of state militias and the Uniform Militia Act.... it adds a new perspective.

What about the statement from the Rhode Island Constitution, Does this statement mean that citizens are only free to publish when they are members of a press organization?
This statement has the exact same construction as the Second Amendment, does it not?

IndigoFlavours,

Actually you forgot the part in the amendment that says "shall not be infringed". This was written in context that in order to have liberty the people needed to be able to have the means at their disposal to protect themselves. This is a mistake alot of historians make interpreting this amendment. You see this more and more, another example would be the gay marriage thing in Mass. Read some of the Federalist papers and you will see.

cusbilla

Your scholarship would have been better served if you read the case that explains the scope and extent of the protection secured by the 2nd Amendment. That case is U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

The language of the 2nd is inspected and has been found to be useful for the courts to explore why the pre-existing right to arms is secured.

The Miller Court, after reviewing a Tennessee case which explained the purpose of RKBA provisions said, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

The purpose, the intent, the why a provision exists is called by the courts, the object. The object of the 2nd Amendment is to forever enable the civil power to summon a large group of citizens at a moments notice and have them muster with appropriate arms and a couple days provisions, ready to take the field in defense of that civil power or their own liberties.

How that circumstance is guaranteed, the means to ensure that that recourse will always be available to both the civil power and the people, is to guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms, forever inviolate, disarming individuals only for crimes committed and after due process.

While the object of the 2nd Amendment is a collective exercise, the only means to achieve it is by securing the individual right to arms.

The mutation begins when a court takes the Miller Court's collective object explanation and turns it into a collective right interpretation.

Please, re-read my post above (IIRC, 4 posts before yours) and respond to the question posed.

Thank you.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms means that the people of the U.S. (U.S. citizens) have the right to keep and bear arms. Saying the people do not have the right to keep and bear arms is like saying they do not have the right to vote. The Constitution states that the people have the right to vote so they have the right to keep and bear arms.

Mike_Raffone:

While your statement here is perfectly correct, an additional note should be made that I believe Hugo attempted to make earlier, and indeed SCOTUS appears to have implied. That is that regardless of the enumeration of rights in the Bill of Rights, there are other rights retained by the people that are not enumerated (see 9th and 10th amendments for details). As such, the true test of one's right to keep and bear arms is not an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but rather, as Hugo points out, an inspection of Article 1, Section 8. If the power to restrict individual owership of arms is not enumerated in that section, then it is not a power possessed by Congress and must conversely be a right retained by the people.

Admittedly, this raises the interesting question of whether or not nukes are therefore protected arms that can be freely possessed by the people.

These kinds of "WMDs" did not exist at the time of the writing of the Constitution. So some argument could be made that this was an uninticipated development that might not have been the original intent of the writers of the Constitution. However, some would also argue as those have above against .50 caliber rifles, assault rifles, etc. Give the original context and intent of the 2nd Amendment (not even considering Article 1, Section 8), I think assault rifles are definitely protected arms. After all, the entire purpose of protecting this right to arms was so that the people themselves would have the arms necessary to engage in military conflict. The arms protected at the time were now bows or arrows, nor were they spears or knives. They were the most advanced military weapons available to the individual at the time: the rifle and the pistol. They were guns designed for military-type use in military conflict. Therefore, I think that military-style rifles are well within the intended type of arms intended by the framers.

They may not have had the vastly destructive and devistating atomic weapons but that's not to say they did not have WMD's. I seem to remember reading of incidents in the French and Indian War where American (at the time British) forces were catapulting bodies infected with small-pox into the French forts.
But this also answers another point that is quite frequently missed in the Second Amendment. To catapult bodies into a fort requires a weapon that is necessarily a multi-operator type of weapon. The Second refers to "keep and bear". It would be extream to think that a single man could "keep and bear" such an instrument. Same goes for a cannon. It must be "crewed". A crew must deliver an atomic weapon, be it an artillery shell or a missile or even a "one man nuke" (many men are required to insure its functionality).

I will grant you that you possess the right to own a gun. I've always believed that to be what the founders intended. The only thing that I have an issue with is individuals who somehow believe that they are the militia. I find this particularly bothersome because the constitution directly states that it is the government's job to call out, train, and appoint leaders to the "militia" So, until the order is given, those people in Idaho and Montana are practicing without orders.

" To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the United States Constitution)

While we, who understand the fundamental principles this Republic was established upon know your statement is true, the theory has not done well when it's been raised as protection for the right to arms. Sure the 9th's been cited as a misty acknowledgement that there are some rights, somewhere, that exist beyond those previously enumerated, but in real life, it doesn't carry the weight it should.

Which of course was the Federalist's argument against a Bill of Rights . . . The silence of the Constitution upon an issue, renders the government impotent to impact that issue, so, our rights are safe.

I believe that the weapons of open warfare, which is the uncontested sole domain of the federal government are reserved to it and it alone. The reason the 2nd Amendment was written was to ensure the militia would remain a viable and effective force in the scope of the conflicts it would be used in. That does not include warplanes, bombs, WMD's or other indiscriminate weapons or larger artillery.

Without a doubt what are termed now as assault weapons are protected arms under the 2nd Amendment (at least if Miller's standard is to be followed).

There were plenty of small cannon in the regular complement of militia companies. 3, 4 and 6 pound guns and howitzers were common. Cannon casting was big business in the Colonies before and during the war.
The militia would of course utilize any weapon they seized from the British and this included crew weapons. Problem with those was moving them.

A good indication of what weapons the militia had in 1775 is General Gage's orders to seize and destroy the militia's weapons and provisions at Concord.

"Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provisions, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property.

You have a Draught of Concord, on which is marked the Houses, Barns, &c, which contain the above military Stores. You will order a Trunion to be knocked off each Gun, but if its found impracticable on any, they must be spiked, and the Carriages destroyed. The Powder and flour must be shook out of the Barrels into the River, the Tents burnt, Pork or Beef destroyed in the best way you can devise. And the Men may put Balls of lead in their pockets, throwing them by degrees into Ponds, Ditches &c., but no Quantity together, so that they may be recovered afterwards. If you meet any Brass Artillery, you will order their muzzles to be beat in so as to render them useless."

When Paul Revere made his run, there were quite a few cannon and artillery in the citizen's hands.

The historical definition of the militia was every male citizen, 16 to 45 years old, capable of bearing arms. Today, with the anti-discrimination laws. nearly every person in the USA over the age of majority is the militia. Now, I feel that those guys in Montana and Idaho, while individually are the militia, organized as they are, lacking the various duties to the militia incumbent on the state government to perform, do not represent an organized militia that could be recognized as legitimate at this time.

Congress's power is limited to only the organized militia of a state after it has been called to serve the nation. That power is further limited to only "such part of them" actually called up. That construction avoids having a partial federal call up in a state and having the whole state's militia become under the control of Congress.
The citizens not in the organized, federally called up militia and their guns, are immune from Congress's power (at least under Art I, § 8; Congressional power over the unorganized militia and their guns is claimed under the commerce clause). The only place in the Constitution that the unorganized militia and their guns is addressed is in the 2nd Amendment.

First, I should make it clear that I feel we should have the right to keep and bear arms (within limits) and that this has been more or less codified by legislation and court rulings subsequent to the Bill of Rights.

BUT: the thing that has always puzzled me about the Second Amendment - and the debate arising from it - is somewhat related to astronerd's grammar lesson: What is that militia clause doing there?

Whatever the intentions of the framers of the Rhode Island constitution, the authors of the Bill of Rights were notoriously terse. There is nothing in any of the first ten amendments which is superfluous - nor anything which accounts for why any of those amendments were made to the Constitution.

The First Amendment does not specify (unfortunately) "The separation of church and state being prerequisite to an independent nation, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." or even "In order to preserve the right to practice any or all religions freely, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

The Third Amendment does not specify "In order to secure individual property rights, no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house..."

The Fourth Amendment does not specify "Privacy being a natural right essential to protect in any free state, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..."

The Fifth Amendment does not specify "Due process of law being vital to natural justice, no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury..."

And so on. In fact, in the whole of the Constitution I can find nothing which has such a modifier. One - and only one - amendment in the Bill of Rights has a clause which could possibly be considered a qualifier: the Second Amendment. If "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is not meant to modify this amendment, what the hell is it doing there?

If the Second Amendment followed the form of every other item in the Bill of Rights, it would simply read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Why doesn't it?

Why did our Founders feel it was absolutely necessary to add such a "superfluous" clause to a single amendment when everywhere else they were so brief as to leave many amendments open to broad interpretation. Why, in this one instance, did they add something which can obviously be read as a clause which limits the interpretation?

Why this one, unique exception? Did they - maybe - think it was worth mentioning?

As you all know I frequently look to the Federalist Papers when trying to understand what the Founding Fathers intended when they authored the Constitution.

Madison Federalist Paper #46



Clearly, Madison is stating that both subordinate governments and the rights of citizens to bear arms are required as a safeguard against a tyrannical federal government. These armed citizens, under the direction of their state or local government, form the militias necessary to combat a federal government gone astray.

A few other quotes from both Federalists and Anti-Federalists:

* Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

* George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

* Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

* Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

* Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

It seems like the right of the citizens to bear arms was almost universally viewed as a needed check upon the power of government in the colonial era.

And who was the militia? More quotes:

George Mason, of Virginia:

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.". . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." -- Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." -- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," -- later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788

Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia:

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." -- Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

Who is the militia,according to Mason?



Who are the militia, according to Lee?



Once you understand that the militia,referred to in the second amendment,is the people; arguments that the term militia limits the right to bear arms is absurd.

Everyone at the time of the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights knew what the militia was and what its purpose was in a nation to be founded on Republican Principles and established to secure liberty. The axioms found in the 2nd Amendment were never in dispute then and they remain clear and pertinent today.

1) A properly functioning militia, composed of the body of the people capable of bearing arms and capable of acting in concert, is necessary to the security of a free state. 2) All the people, all the time (not only when in "actual service"), have the right to keep and bear arms; there are no "select" arms bearers. 3) The government has absolutely no power to disarm the individual, without just cause and due process.

These truths are based on a couple thousand years of history, political thought and theory; they are derived from the classical philosophical texts concerning the experiences of ancient Greece and Rome up to seventeenth century English writers whose works sparked the Glorious Revolution.

Of course there were philosophers who promoted systems that did not recognize or even argued against the principle of an armed citizenry. The systems promoted by these writers, mainly Jean Bodin, Sir Robert Filmer and Thomas Hobbes were authoritarian political models where sedition and unrest is quelled by restricting arms and free speech among the "commoners."

In contrast to those writers, whom the founders discounted as instructional for the formation of our Republic, stand the theories the framers endorsed, those of John Locke and Algernon Sidney and many others. They outlined what constitutes legitimate governmental power and promoted the ideal that government governs only with the consent of the governed. Their system endorsed an armed citizenry standing as a barrier to an arbitrary government harming the rights of the citizens; in essence, the citizens rescinding their consent to be governed if non-violent means of changing the government fail.

The clause in question, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is not a modifier or a qualifying phrase for the right that follows. It is a statement of purpose for the Amendment, the why the right was secured, not why it "exists." The right existed before the Constitution was written and the founders found the right being freely exercised by the citizens, without any qualifications. It would have been quite presumptuous of them to think they could impact a right being freely exercised without a specific grant of power to do so; in fact it violates everything they supposedly stood for. If such qualifications were buried in the amendment then it is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people. No such inherent control over the right was ever spoken of; if it had been made public there probably would have been another revolution.

The clause stands as a statement of fact, a maxim, it is as you say, the only provision with such a clause so Congress' characterization of the provisions in the Preamble would be important. Congress introduced the proposed amendments as being "declaratory and restrictive clauses."

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

National Archives and Records Administration

The first clause of the 2nd Amendment is a declaration. A declaration is not usually considered an imperative, it is not taken as a command or a modifier.

The strongest argument of all for us to not give this clause weight as controlling the right to keep and bear arms is the words of the Supreme Court.

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. "

U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

If the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, nor is the existence or scope of the right dependant on the 2nd Amendment in any way, how can the 2nd Amendment be read to ascribe limitations, conditions and qualifications for the exercise of the right?

The "right to bear arms for lawful purpose" exists separately from the provision forbidding government to injure it. The right is the IT in the above excerpt, the IT is clearly a separate entity from the 2nd Amendment.

Are you sure, Hugo, the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure liberty and not slavery? From this site.



A bit from this site:

Mason and Henry made many arguments against ratification, but one of the strategies they devised was particularly shrewd. Virginia was nearly half black, and the white population lived in constant fear of slave insurrection. The main instrument of control was the militia. So critical was the militia for slave control that, in the main, the southern states refused to commit their militia to the war against the British. The Constitution, however, would transfer the lion's share of the power over the militia to Congress. Slavery was becoming increasingly obnoxious to the North, and southern delegates to the Philadelphia convention demanded and got an agreement, somewhat cryptically written into the Constitution, that deprived the federal government of authority to abolish slavery. Mason and Henry raised the specter of Congress using its authority over the militia to do indirectly what it could not do directly. They suggested that Congress might refuse to call forth the militia to suppress an insurrection, send southern militia to New Hampshire, or—and on this they harped repeatedly—disarm the militia. For Virginia and the South, these were chilling prospects.

The Federalists prevailed, but just barely. Although Virginia ratified the Constitution, Madison limped out of the Richmond Convention. Half of Virginia was still anti-Federalist, and the anti-Federalists were determined to end Madison's political career. Losing a bid to the United States Senate, Madison was reduced to running for a House seat. Patrick Henry had Madison's congressional district gerrymandered to include as many anti-Federalist areas as possible, then recruited a rising young star—James Monroe—to run for the seat.

Monroe campaigned as a champion for a bill of rights. Madison had previously been opposed to a bill of rights, but it was not a popular view. Cognitive dissonance set in, and Madison persuaded himself that he had only been opposed to a bill of rights prior to ratification. He promised the electorate he would support adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.

Madison won the election, and he went to Congress politically committed to supporting a bill of rights. When he drafted that document, he included a provision that with minor modifications became what is now the Second Amendment: "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." (end of quotes)

You,Hugo, seem frequently to ignore that the noble Constitution was contaminated by the issue of slavery. The second amendment's primary purpose was to insure the continuance of slavery, not as a barrier to federal tyranny.

The section of the constitution that mentions the militia does not state in any way, that the government is limited to being in charge of the militia after it is called up. To somehow suggest that the "militia" is independent of the government except in the case of a grave emergency, is simply unconstitutional. In the case of U.S. v. Miller of 1939, it was explained that the militia is under the control of the state(and the ultimate control of the federal government) and is in no way, independent of either body. The boys in Idaho and Montana are NOT the militia. They have not been commissioned, and lacking such authority, do not possess the title of "militia" Yes, you have a right to own a gun, but no person, and no state, can have an independent "army" outside the authority of congress.

"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." (Notice as well that it does not state that one can be a perpetual member of a militia)
-William O. Douglass

The primary rule of Constitutional interpretation is inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, inclusion of one is exclusion of others. Art. I § 8, cl 16 states clearly that Congress' power only extends:

"To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Likewise, considering the Executive branch in Art II, § 2, cl 1:

"The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States; . . ."

There is a distinction there, there can be no Congressional control over the active militia until they are called up to serve the nation. Congress can (and did) write regulations to mandate a certain form of training to be done by the states, to require a uniformity of arms etc, but actual control and command of the units and men would remain with the states up to the point they serve the nation formally. As far as the citizenry, (the unorganized militia), there is no legitimate power granted to Congress over them or their weapons, at least in Art I, § 8 of the COTUS.

Another example of this distinction is in the 5th Amendment. Militia members have the right of not being held without grand jury indictment, secured in the 5th Amendment up to the point they are called to active service; interestingly, it seems being activated by just your state or local authorities in a situation of "public danger" is enough to have you fall under the UCMJ, not the narrower cast of "service to the nation."

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; . . ."

Nothing in that statement leads me to believe you have ever read US v. Miller. Miller is very clear exactly what the, "signification [meaning] attributed to the term Militia" is.

The Court accepts the principle that the militia is, "all males physically capable of acting in concert," and "all adult male inhabitants," and "all able bodied men" and "every able-bodied Male Person" and "All free male persons."

The Court accepts that these militia members were to, "appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time," and "shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm, &c." and "provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, . . ."

The Court tells us about those "Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service." (note, that's only subject to service, not formally enrolled or activated, 16 to 45 years old was a limitation on service, not the right to keep and bear arms) Some of these statutes, "ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service." and the, "general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, . . . " and the "possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former."

It seems there was a situation where a militia member would have his firearm supplied by the authorities; the Court states:

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

Where did I disagree with you on that? I agreed that their group is not an organized militia company, however, those individuals are militia members as far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned.

Why???

The militia has tiers. There is the militia that is the "whole people," "the body of the people," "all citizens capable." (Federalist No. 29) Their duty is just to have an appropriate firearm and be ready if called. Going out on their own, in a loose association to drill is not part of their duty. (your example) Then there is the state's militia with actively enrolled members that do drill and practice. Today, that would be the National Guard. Then there is the part of the state's militia (or State Guard Units) called by the President in actual service to the nation. In the writings of the founders they use "militia" to describe each of these tiers, often with an imperceptible segue within the same document, paragraph or even within the same sentence.


Correct. Militia is not the Army. SCOTUS has held that the 2nd is no protection for citizens to drill armed on their own.


Have you read the US Code lately?

My question stands. Why include this statement at all? No other amendment - no other clause in the Constitution - includes "a statement of purpose". No other amendment needs an explanation for why it is secured. Why this one? Unless, of course, the phrase is there not to state purpose, but to qualify.

Your question might stand if you addressed at all, any of my points and demonstrated how your question survives after rebutting my positions. I tried to offer historical and philosophical reasons why your position would be incomprhensible for the framers to undertake. It violates the most basic ideal of this Republic; equal rights. Please show how your contention, that it is a qualifying clause, stands up to my argument that in as far as the right is concerned, the words chosen by the framers to secure the right, do not and can not be read to qualify the right. for this exercise, I use the following quote from SCOTUS for justification. Can you offer an opposing interpretation of the following that endorses your position and that conforms to the fundamental principle that governments are instituted to secure rights, not grant them?

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. "

U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

It seems as though it is my question that stands; can you offer a rebuttal to the following?

If the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, nor is the existence or scope of the right dependant on the 2nd Amendment in any way, how can the 2nd Amendment be read to ascribe limitations, conditions and qualifications for the exercise of the right?

Good points and I agree. We can look at the Swiss for a lesson in the arms area. All Swiss men are required to bear arms and this includes machine guns and artillery pieces! They are expected to keep and maintain the weapons and every man must qualify with his rifle and send a certified target to the government yearly.


Clearly folks such as Jefferson felt that American had the inherent right to be armed at all times.

Mike: I asked you what time it was and you told me how to make a watch. Now you answer my question with another question? Very well, I will indulge you. But, before addressing anything else in this post, I would ask again why is the "militia" clause included in this amendment at all? Why would it not have served every purpose you mention by simply stating "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

[quote=Mike_Raffone,Nov 30 2003, 11:39 PM]Your question might stand if you addressed at all, any of my points and demonstrated how your question survives after rebutting my positions.[/quote]
None of your points or positions answered the question. I know what a militia is; I know what it meant when the Bill of Rights was drafted; I am aware of the historical context in relation to militias and the War of Independence; I am familiar with the "securing of rights" argument; I know of US v. Cruickshank and find their decision (in this context) illogical and absurd. This is all irrelevant. Not one of these items answers the question: Why is it essential to include the "militia" clause in the Second Amendment?

[quote]I tried to offer historical and philosophical reasons why your position would be incomprehensible for the framers to undertake. It violates the most basic ideal of this Republic; equal rights. Please show how your contention, that it is a qualifying clause, stands up to my argument that in as far as the right is concerned, the words chosen by the framers to secure the right, do not and can not be read to qualify the right.[/quote]
Okay, but before we allow you to lead the argument where you want it to go, allow me my own history lesson. First, so long as every white, land-owning male (which is how we must interpret "the people" in the context of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) is equally eligible to serve in a militia, he is equally entitled to keep and bear arms. No inequality of rights here at all (apart from those presumed in the historical context).

But this Amendment is not about equal rights. (Nor, for that matter, was the Constitution as a whole. There was not - and still isn't - an "equal right" to vote, for example.) Our Founders were concerned with the balance of power between the states and the federal government - as your beloved Federalist Papers make abundantly clear. At the time the Constitution was written, many feared a strong, autocratic central government. The Constitution provides for a division of authority over the militia, relegating much of its organization and operation to the states. The Second Amendment seems, to me, to be making it clear that the federal government does not have the power to disarm the state militias. Period.

To continue the history lesson, we must remember that the British had tried to do just that in an effort to put down the Revolution. At one point, the citizens of Boston were held prisoner by General Gage until they surrendered their weapons. There were no armories to attack so in an attempt to render the militias ineffective, the British tried to confiscate all weapons. The Second Amendment was to limit the power of the central government and prevent it from ever attempting to do the same. It has nothing to do with securing an individual right, from my perspective, but with securing, um... "a well-regulated militia".

You may find this outlandish, but I assure you it is no more outlandish than the assumption that any right not mentioned in the Constitution is automatically guaranteed. The Ninth Amendment tells us that "the enumeration [not securing] of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others". But it does not tell us that any right not so enumerated is to be presumed. Some rights are "retained", some are not. This is up to legislatures to decide. The individual right to bear arms without the necessity of a militia is no more obvious a presumption than the right to engage in polygamy or practice usury or indulge in prostitution or extort money from one's fellows or raise and support a private army.

[quote]For this exercise, I use the following quote from SCOTUS for justification. Can you offer an opposing interpretation of the following that endorses your position and that conforms to the fundamental principle that governments are instituted to secure rights, not grant them?

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.'[/quote]
Oops - looks like the framers forgot to mention that "for a lawful purpose" bit. Oh - unless that's why "militias" were mentioned...

[quote]This is not a right granted by the Constitution.[/quote]
Quite right. Though it looks like the court feels that the "granting" of rights is something the Constitution can do...

[quote]Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.[/quote]
True. Nor is the right to gay marriage, the right to consume cannabis, the right to gamble on NFL games, the right to assist suicide, etc., etc. Presuming that rights not mentioned are absolutely unassailable is absurd.

[quote]The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;[/quote]
Yes. And it does so in the context of "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". It does not declare that that right shall not be infringed without that clause.

[quote]but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."[/quote]
By which we can take it that individual states or municipalities may infringe upon that right? Or, does it not make more sense that Congress shall not infringe upon the rights of the states to regulate their own militias?

[quote]It seems as though it is my question that stands[/quote]
It seems that mine does as well. There is not a thing in any of your arguments which accounts for why the "militia" clause was included. There is not a thing which explains why the Second Amendment would not be serviceable without it.

[quote]can you offer a rebuttal to the following?

If the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment[/quote]
I'm not convinced that it isn't - and that it isn't specifically granted to state militias. It's the only thing which makes sense of the inclusion of that clause. There are dozens - nay, thousands - of rights which we do not have; "rights" that are proscribed by law. Because they are neither "secured" nor denied by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights says nothing about them - they are not "retained" by presumption. It does appear to me that, in the context of an essential militia, this one right is "granted".

[quote]nor is the existence or scope of the right dependant on the 2nd Amendment in any way[/quote]
Who says the existence or scope of the right is not dependent on the Second Amendment in any way? The Constitution doesn't say it. A reading of the Constitution should not presume it. On the other hand, the Second Amendment can - easily - be read to contain a qualifying clause.

[quote]how can the 2nd Amendment be read to ascribe limitations, conditions and qualifications for the exercise of the right?[/quote]
By the presence of a clause which is otherwise illogical, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.

Again, what is there in your argument which explains why the "militia" clause is there in the first place? What is there anywhere in your argument which demonstrates that the Second Amendment would just not make sense if it simply read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Why, to follow your argument, did the authors of the Bill need to tell us why they were "securing" this one right when they did not feel compelled to tell us why they were "securing" any other right - in either the Constitution or its Amendments? You have not provided an answer to the question.

I believe I have. The Second Amendment is all about limiting the power of the central government over militias regulated by the several states. Nothing else that I have seen anywhere accounts for that "superfluous" militia clause.

Oh - and one more time - I am not opposed to the individual right to bear arms. I am glad this right has been secured by subsequent legislation and court rulings - and it may have been presumed by the framers (just as the cultivation of cannabis was - George Washington had one of the largest hemp plantations in the country). BUT I do not think that it is "secured" by the Bill of Rights.

Wertz, well said.

The second amendment can only be thought to refer to private gun ownership through the use of dubious philology .

1. The original draft of the amendment, by Madison:



The final clause equates "bear arms" with "military service." By moving the bit about the militia to the front end, one could argue the amendment was given a greater military context.

2. "Bear arms." In Latin, arma ferre. From Garry Wills' A Necessary Evil:



3. "Keep." Again, Wills:

From various Supreme Court Decisions the “right to bear arms” is covered outside of the “regulated militia” statement and as such can be seen as independent of it.

As in:

Dred Scott

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 417, 450-451 (1857)

This decision concerned whether or not African-Americans could be considered United States citizens and capable of bringing suit in federal courts. The Court relied upon historic discrimination that denied black Americans (slaves) rights of citizens. The Court's most conclusive example (their terms) was New Hampshire's 1815 laws that denied militia participation to black Americans. About this denial, the court said:
“Nothing could more strongly mark the entire repudiation of the African race.” (P. 415)
Were blacks to be considered citizens — with all the rights a citizen should expect — the Court enumerated what those right would include:
“It would give to persons of the Negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (P. 417)
The Court maintained that the federal government had no power to enact Territorial laws infringing upon individual rights:

“Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.... The powers over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them.” [emphasis added]
Verdugo-Urquidez

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)

Verdugo's language is unequivocal:
“The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the People of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”


Emerson

UNITED STATES of America v. Timothy Joe EMERSON
United States District Court, N.D. Texas, San Angelo Division. April 7, 1999.

“A textual analysis of the Second Amendment, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read '[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' [B]However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. Id. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized. Id. at 201. supports an individual right to bear arms. In Patton v US (1930) the Court's construction of ‘the people’ as used in the Second Amendment supports a holding that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right retained by the people, as opposed to a collective right held by the States. Thus, a textual analysis of the Second Amendment clearly declares a substantive right to bear arms recognized in the people of the United States.”
For further information about U.S. v. Emerson, including more detailed excerpts, full text and many articles and links, go here: http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Emerson/.

Wertz:

This is not strictly correct. Allow me to quote you once more before explaining:


You're missing the important text in the 10th Amendment. When it comes to unenumerated rights, they are all retained by default, contrary to your assertion, and are limited not by the legislature as you suggest, but by the Constitutional grants of authority to the federal government. At least as far as the federal government is concerned. If the federal government is not granted a particular power by the Constitution -- such as disarming the citizenry -- then that power is denied to it by default and therefore it is an openly retained right of the people.

So whatever the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, it is irrelevant with regard to the right of individuals to keep and bear arms at the present time since no power has been Constitutionally granted to Congress to restrict it. And that is the gist of the SCOTUS ruling Mr. Raffone referenced.

Ted: Again, I am not objecting to the fact that several "activist" jurists have chosen to put this interpretation on the Second Amendment (though I think it is a bad precedent which has only got worse over the years), but I would ask them the same question I asked Raffone: If they are correct, what is that clause doing there? In Emerson, they put the same argument forward that MR did: "the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected".

I would again ask: Why did they offer this helpful explanation in one instance and one instance only? Were they bored that day? Was it just wild caprice, kicking up their heels and going a bit mad one afternoon? Total whim, perhaps: "Hey let's choose an amendment at random and explain why it's there"? Maybe those explanations work for Supreme Court Justices and you, ted. I'd prefer thinking that there was actually a reason for the authors of that amendment to have written the "militia" clause into it. But maybe I give them too much credit...

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Orat: Sorry, I guess I could have been clearer.


Actually, this is strictly correct. All me to quote me once more before explaining:

Note the plural. By this, I meant the state legislatures - or country commissions or city councils or whatever. I meant exactly what you were more or less saying: "as far as the federal government is concerned" the individual right to keep and bear arms is neither granted nor denied.

I would agree entirely with your closing statement:
I would only add that no power has been Constitutionally granted to Congress to guarantee that right either - except insofar as it would have impact on "well-regulated militias".

Hmmm... I guess it depends on your meaning of "guarantee". I'm not sure how Congress can guarantee any rights really. That's more a matter of Constitutional guarantee that has its outworking in the judicial system. Although it could perhaps be said that rights are guaranteed by Congress insofar as Congress is prohibited from passing unconstitutional laws... but that seems a bit contrived. If perhaps you mean the ability of Congress to pass legislation that would override any state restriction on this right, then you may have a point. Of course, there are those who construe the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States as well... but I'm not one of them.

I do not agree with your statement that these decisions were made by “activist judges” simply because they do not agree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

As to “Why did they offer this helpful explanation in one instance and one instance only? Were they bored that day? Was it just wild caprice, kicking up their heels and going a bit mad one afternoon?”

I don’t know nor do I think it is critical as some of the decisions have stated. If I were to guess I would say that the “well regulated militia” is a benefit that accrues to the states and the country from the “right to bear arms” since it insures that more citizens will own and be familiar with firearms and therefore need less training if/when a militia is required.

As for the meaning of the presence of the preceding phrase regarding militia, I cannot authoritatively say why it was placed there, but I can point out that while the 2nd Amendment is the only one with such an explanatory phrase, it is not the only contemporary example of the use of such a phrase for strictly explanatory purposes. Just see the example given at the very start of this thread for example.

And as for the use of the term "bear arms", here is an early proposal put forth in Pennsylvania for the US Bill of Rights:


Note the affirmation of the people's right to "bear arms ... for the purpose of killing game". I think this dispells any myths that assert that all uses of the term "bear arms" refer to military service. Clearly the term had non-military uses in this time period.

An attempt to answer Wertz's question:

From a speech by PatricK Henry opposing the Constitution:



Federal control of the militia was a chief concern of the anti-federalists. The Bill of Rights was a response to Anti-Federalist concerns. Once again, since the militia consisted of the "whole of the people" I do not see how the term militia can be
construed as allowing federal firearms control over the "non-militia".

"And as for the use of the term "bear arms", here is an early proposal put forth in Pennsylvania for the US Bill of Rights"

That's not exactly correct. You are referring here to Robert Whitehill's proposals, which were rejected outright and not even given debate. Madison disagreed with everything else on Whitehill's list - so why should we accept Whitehill as some sort of authority, however contextual, on the meaning of the second amendment? Whitehill wanted the federal government to be even less effectual than it was under the Articles of Confederation.

Jefferson's maxim may be apt here: a document's meaning should be expounded from those who approve it, not those who disapprove.

That's kinda why I put it in quotes. Isn't that what is always meant when someone uses the term "activist judges" - that the judges don't agree with the writer's or speaker's interpretation? I have yet to see an exception.

Spesaking of Jefferson he had made some comments on the subject:

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson

I'm not saying there may not be natural law rights for private gun ownership; indeed, I think that muskets and rifles, though not nearly as common as the NRA seems to believe, were, when owned, considered to be obviously acceptable, for the purposes of hunting.

What I am saying, is that theright to private ownership of guns is not enumerated in the Constitution.

I guess we can argue all day but I feel the 2nd Amendment covers it.

There is plenty of evidence that the “militia” statement is not meant to restrict the rights granted to citizens by the second amendment. If there was a limitation intended then I would think that the wording would have made that clear.

And Jefferson’s statements about being armed at all times clearly does not refer only to hunting! He saw being armed as a basic right and freedom for all. He has also said “never trust a government that restricts your right to bear arms”.

[quote=Wertz,Dec 1 2003, 08:28 PM]Now you answer my question with another question? Very well, I will indulge you. But, before addressing anything else in this post, I would ask again why is the "militia" clause included in this amendment at all? Why would it not have served every purpose you mention by simply stating "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? . . .
None of your points or positions answered the question. I know what a militia is; [/quote]
I attempted to tell you why the militia clause can not have a controlling influence on the restrictive clause with facts and an appeal to the founding principles. Those theories and the sentiments of the founders explained in their writings and the debates show without a doubt that what I presented is factual. An answer to your question would require speculation. I do not like to speculate, I try to keep my statements rooted in provable facts.

I'll begin my speculation by saying that because there is no explanation of why Madison first proposed such a construction the only place to garner such insight would be the proposals from the states. I feel there is nothing in the wording of those proposals that stands in opposition of the individual rights theory.

If I were to speculate further, I would say that the declarative clause relates to the founder's disdain for a standing army. There was debate on Madison's first draft stating that, "a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country;" made such a strong statement that it seemed to discount the worth or even disallow the existence (during peacetime) of regular troops. The agreed upon language is of course, "being necessary to the security of a free state."

The deletion of Madison's conscientious objector language, "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person," further demonstrates that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The debates (in the House at least) on this clause focused on two main themes. 1) If the government can decide that a certain class is excluded, it can decree that all people are a members of that class and thus ineligible. 2) Since from the federal standpoint, where no general obligation to bear arms or render militia service existed other than one's personal commitment to civic duty, it seemed illogical to excuse a person from an action that he is free to do (or not do) by his own conscience. To say that one can exercise a right assumes that it is also legitimate to not exercise the right.

It was as illogical as including in the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; but a person without any religious belief shall not be compelled to worship any Deity." Having the right to free exercise also includes the right not to exercise.
[quote=Wertz]I know what it meant when the Bill of Rights was drafted; I am aware of the historical context in relation to militias and the War of Independence; I am familiar with the "securing of rights" argument; I know of US v. Cruickshank and find their decision (in this context) illogical and absurd. This is all irrelevant. [/quote]
Do you find the Cruikshank Court's explanation of the right to assemble illogical and absurd as well?

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. . . . It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. . . . The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference."

BTW -- After going into these principles at lenth, that the right to assemble isn't granted, the founders found it in existence, the Constitution assumes the existence of such rights; the court begins its treatment of the next count of the indictment (right to arms) saying these counts, "are equally defective." I take this to mean the Court's arguments regarding the right to assemble are congruent with the right to arms and can be read as flowing through both expositions. It seems the Court is telling us equal reasoning can be applied to the right to assemble and the right to arms, the Court feels that both emanate from a plane other than the Constitution because they predate the Constitution. The Court also believes that each right's enumeration in the Bill of Rights is only an acknowledgement of the right's existence, not an establishing statute and only acts as a prohibition on Congress' ability to arbitrarily violate our rights. Do you have a differing take on what , "The second and tenth counts are equally defective," means?
[quote=Wertz]Okay, but before we allow you to lead the argument where you want it to go, allow me my own history lesson. First, so long as every white, land-owning male (which is how we must interpret "the people" in the context of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) is equally eligible to serve in a militia, he is equally entitled to keep and bear arms. No inequality of rights here at all (apart from those presumed in the historical context).[/quote]
The right does not flow from the militia, the militia is an outcome of the right. The continuance of the militia as a viable entity to secure liberty is why the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms is secured.
[quote=Wertz]But this Amendment is not about equal rights. (Nor, for that matter, was the Constitution as a whole. There was not - and still isn't - an "equal right" to vote, for example.) [/quote]
Even if we apply your constraints, free white landowning male, you a still arguing that there is a further culling from that class to arrive at the persons allowed to keep and bear firearms; those enrolled in the state's militia.
In more modern times, with the 14th Amendment, it is about equal rights, it's about one's standing before government, as unequal in many ways as humans may be, no person or class of people is superior to another person or class of people in regard to their rights or standing before government.
[quote=Wertz]Our Founders were concerned with the balance of power between the states and the federal government - as your beloved Federalist Papers make abundantly clear. At the time the Constitution was written, many feared a strong, autocratic central government. The Constitution provides for a division of authority over the militia, relegating much of its organization and operation to the states. [/quote]
They feared a central government in charge of a standing army stationed in the States among the people during peacetime and a disarmed citizenry. That was a recipe for tyranny.
[quote=Wertz]The Second Amendment seems, to me, to be making it clear that the federal government does not have the power to disarm the state militias. Period.[/quote]
Interestingly, during Reconstruction the passage of the Black Codes by many Southern States and their enthusiastic enforcement by the State militia led to exactly that, the federal disarmament and disbanding of state militias.

Amazingly, the 2nd Amendment was never raised as a defense by any state. That disbandment of the state militias just made those groups reform privately, those groups were called the KKK and led to horrific rights infringement beyond the reach of federal authorities, as we see in Cruikshank.
[quote=Wertz]To continue the history lesson, we must remember that the British had tried to do just that in an effort to put down the Revolution. At one point, the citizens of Boston were held prisoner by General Gage until they surrendered their weapons. [/quote]
Correct, thousands of weapons were confiscated "for safekeeping" from the citizens of Boston in just a matter of days.
[quote=Wertz]There were no armories to attack so in an attempt to render the militias ineffective, the British tried to confiscate all weapons. The Second Amendment was to limit the power of the central government and prevent it from ever attempting to do the same. [/quote]
Apparently, the British understood the the power of an armed citizenry. Where were those weapons being stored, who owned them?

"Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provisions, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property.

You have a Draught of Concord, on which is marked the Houses, Barns, &c, which contain the above military Stores. . . ."

[quote=Wertz]It has nothing to do with securing an individual right, from my perspective, but with securing, um... "a well-regulated militia".[/quote]
Well regulated is a term that leads to much modern confusion. It does not refer to or confer any control of the militia by any governmental authority. It is a term that describes the condition of the unit and the men. It is in fact an accolade, an acknowledgement of their expertise in the military arts. It is a term that is bestowed on a unit, not a rigid condition that can be legislated into existence from Washington DC. That is its own discussion if you are interested.
[quote=Wertz]You may find this outlandish, but I assure you it is no more outlandish than the assumption that any right not mentioned in the Constitution is automatically guaranteed. The Ninth Amendment tells us that "the enumeration [not securing] of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others". But it does not tell us that any right not so enumerated is to be presumed. Some rights are "retained", some are not. This is up to legislatures to decide. [/quote]
You wish to upset and overturn centuries of political philosophy upon which this Republic was formed. You are outlandish and wrong.
[quote=Wertz]The individual right to bear arms without the necessity of a militia is no more obvious a presumption than the right to engage in polygamy or practice usury or indulge in prostitution or extort money from one's fellows or raise and support a private army.[/quote]
That is pure speculation on your part, completely without substantiation.
[quote=Wertz]Oops - looks like the framers forgot to mention that "for a lawful purpose" bit. Oh - unless that's why "militias" were mentioned...[/quote]
No, the Court is just reading directly from the indictment of Cruikshank, it was just one of eight rights he and his accomplices were charged with violating. They encountered the two black men who were on their way to a polling place to vote. Cruikshank and his fellow KKK members disarmed, beat and lynched Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, both "of African descent and persons of color." There was never a question that Nelson and Tillman were not members of the militia, yet the Court recognized their right to bear arms as being violated. The Court decided that, because the violators were "fellow citizens" federal courts had no jurisdiction.
[quote=Wertz]Quite right. Though it looks like the court feels that the "granting" of rights is something the Constitution can do...[/quote]
No. The Court is explicitly excluding that possibility as it has done continuously and without equivocation since 1795.

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)"

"The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)"

"[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty, . . ." DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)

[quote=Wertz]True. Nor is the right to gay marriage, the right to consume cannabis, the right to gamble on NFL games, the right to assist suicide, etc., etc. Presuming that rights not mentioned are absolutely unassailable is absurd.[/quote]
You really need to read up on the debates surrounding the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
[quote=Wertz]Yes. And it does so in the context of "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". It does not declare that that right shall not be infringed without that clause.[/quote]
No, the court is addressing the "right to bear arms for lawful purpose" as existing separately and distinct from the 2nd Amendment but most certainly protected by the 2nd (against federal infringement). Does the 2nd Amendment say the 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed? Why don't you tell us all what you think the Court thinks the IT is that is referred to multiple times in the following?

"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it