[vbtemp]

> ""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."

I think was this was meant to mean was: Any citizen has the right to join their local/state militia, and keep their service rifle and uniform with them at home.

[jandrewrogers]

The militia is defined in both statutory and common law as essentially every able-bodied male, and always has been in the US. The statutory law explicitly recognizes that the militia is not something you "join" but is something you are.

Obviously this should probably be expanded to include women generally, but their 2nd Amendment rights are not predicated on their membership in the militia.

[nmz]

Able-bodied seems like it should exclude those with disabilities. militia is certainly not an individualistic term either.

if able-bodied or militia is defined by the law does that mean they can include and exclude whoever they wish by redefining it?

[cryptonector]

> I think was this was meant to mean was: Any citizen has the right to join their local/state militia, and keep their service rifle and uniform with them at home.

Seems sensible. But the court is saying that if you look at what laws were passed / in force at the time, and what courts said about them around that time, you'll see that to contemporaries of ratification the second amendment meant a right to carry arms, not just to be in a militia, or whatever. That too seems sensible. Now what?

[Ekaros]

So if a group of people form a militia, do they then as militia have right to produce let's say nuclear weapons? As those are "arms" and thus shall not be infringed. Can federal government or state control what type of weapons these militias manufacture, import and hold?

[gadflyinyoureye]

The constitution the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". So who owns the right? Is it the Feds? No. Is it the States? No. It's the peoples'.

While the first part of the sentence says why should care, the explicit right is owned by the people.

What people don't often consider is that one can infer that rights might be infringed. The second amendment just says, "We can't fringe this right".

[_dain_]

That isn't what was found by DC v Heller.

[cweagans]

DC v. Heller was wrong. Go read the context around all of the places where a militia is mentioned in the constitution. It’s a pretty clear difference from the world that DC v. Heller created.

[curiousllama]

Yea, there's a lot of history around types of militias, too (especially formal v. informal militias). The historical arguments were what got me on this: the 'prefatory' clause is pretty clearly there to point out that formal militias are allowed, and make no mention of informal militias.

[koheripbal]

The Constitution is a little ambiguous as to whether or not a citizen must join a militia in order to keep a gun at home.

...however in the absence of militias in the US today, it makes sense that even if that requirement was initially envisioned (which is very debatable), it's no longer reasonable.

It's historically interesting to note that different versions of the amendment were ratified, both including and not including that last comma.

[wffurr]

DC vs Heller was a bad decision full of ideological motivated reasoning by a politicized court.

[colinmhayes]

The supreme court just decided that precedent is meaningless though.

[StuffMaster]

It's pretty much what the words say. And it's likely what the authors meant.