Comments on: U.S. Supreme Court may rule on Constitutional Issue of Gun Ownership http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2007/11/12/us-supreme-court-may-rule-on-constitutional-issue-of-gun-ownership/ Lawyer in the Philippines Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:36:50 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Leif Rakur http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2007/11/12/us-supreme-court-may-rule-on-constitutional-issue-of-gun-ownership/comment-page-1/#comment-14940 Leif Rakur Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:52:18 +0000 http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2007/11/12/us-supreme-court-may-rule-on-constitutional-issue-of-gun-ownership/#comment-14940 How well regulated should the well regulated militia of the Second Amendment be? If that’s the crux of the question facing the Supreme Court, the question would appear to be largely irrelevant to 21st century America. We no longer have the kind of state militia that existed when the Second Amendment was written -- that is, one in which every nonexempt citizen capable of bearing arms was expected to be enrolled and trained in military discipline. The universal militia service of the era of the founders and the framers has given way to Alexander Hamilton’s select militia – now the National Guard, which according to the U.S. Supreme Court is “ the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution.” Presumably, the regulation of the National Guard is not at issue in the present case. Anyone who wants to see for himself what 18th-century Americans considered to be a well regulated militia might take a look at Pennsylvania’s militia act of 1780. The act is many pages long and filled with rules and regulations. It was written because, it says in its preamble, "a well regulated militia is the only safe and constitutional method of defending a free state." The words "free state" here undoubtedly refer to Pennsylvania. The legislation is called “An Act for the REGULATION of the Militia of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” (Emphasis added) How well regulated should the well regulated militia of the Second Amendment be? If that’s the crux of the question facing the Supreme Court, the question would appear to be largely irrelevant to 21st century America.

We no longer have the kind of state militia that existed when the Second Amendment was written — that is, one in which every nonexempt citizen capable of bearing arms was expected to be enrolled and trained in military discipline.

The universal militia service of the era of the founders and the framers has given way to Alexander Hamilton’s select militia – now the National Guard, which according to the U.S. Supreme Court is “ the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution.”

Presumably, the regulation of the National Guard is not at issue in the present case.

Anyone who wants to see for himself what 18th-century Americans considered to be a well regulated militia might take a look at Pennsylvania’s militia act of 1780.

The act is many pages long and filled with rules and regulations. It was written because, it says in its preamble, “a well regulated militia is the only safe and constitutional method of defending a free state.” The words “free state” here undoubtedly refer to Pennsylvania.

The legislation is called “An Act for the REGULATION of the Militia of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” (Emphasis added)

]]>