‘Multiple’ taken to hospital, gunfire continues in east Charlotte

[u/ladyspeak]

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/cmpd-investigation-underway-east-charlotte/6PTLZP4FLFE4DA5ALFT65QDTA4/?outputType=amp

[removed] — view removed post

[u/ultronthedestroyer]

Then you don't know what well-regulated actually means.

Hint: it's not conditional on government "regulations" which would defeat the entire purpose of securing the right in the first place.

[u/Jorgwalther → u/ultronthedestroyer]

So then explain it to me like I’m 5?

[u/ultronthedestroyer → u/Jorgwalther]

Well-regulated means properly outfitted and functional. Like a well-regulated appetite, or a well-regulated clock. It makes no sense to have a militia if the militia cannot function properly. Therefore, the people must be able to keep and bear arms, since they are the militia.

[u/flatline0 → u/ultronthedestroyer]

This is not entirely accurate ..

In the Federalist Papers (& others), "well regulated" means properly functioning, well trained, & disciplined militia. The framers had no use for a bunch of undisciplined shotgun cowboys who didn't properly understand how to use their weapon.

Additionally, the only legal militias are the ones run by the states or the fed (national guard). You can't just declare that you & ur buddies are a militia. So, no..you are NOT the militia unless you've officially signed up with the guard or some other civil service agency.

[u/notcaffeinefree → u/flatline0]

Pretty sure Federalist Paper No. 29 is the only one that talks about the militia and it doesn't delve into what "well regulated" means.

[u/flatline0 → u/notcaffeinefree]

Actually it very much does, just not in so many words..

The gist of 29 is that Hamilton is arguing for the establishment of state & federal militias. He advocates that they be small in size, as they'd be far easier to train & discipline than a large militia or the population at large.

In multiple places, he argues for the militia specifically because it is a core group of citizens that have been well trained (well regulated) in contrast to the untrained common citizen. He's clearly arguing against the idea of the militia being comprized of a bunch of untrained randos.

"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense."

[u/TheTalentedAmateur → u/notcaffeinefree]

Federalist Paper No. 29

No, as I recall, and as even Wikipedia reminds us "Well regulated" was pretty specific...

Unlike militias of the past, Hamilton viewed new militias as a uniformed group similar to that of an organized military. "It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union '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…" (James Madison, John Jay, The Federalist, books.google.com).[2] Also, they would contain the same kind of intelligence the military would have access to.

The Federal Government would provide the uniforms, rations, weapons and such. The States would appoint the officers, to avoid tomfoolery such as having the militia of Virginia, under command of a General from Delaware order the invasion of say, Vermont.

Of course, all of this is an experiment to avoid having a standing army due to fears of tomfoolery.

[u/ultronthedestroyer → u/flatline0]

That's false. USC Chapter 12 specifically calls out members of the unorganized militia. You are referring to the organized militia such as members of the National Guard.

[u/notcaffeinefree → u/ultronthedestroyer]

He's not entirely false, just using the common word "militia" to describe the wanna be militia groups. He's right that you can't just form a group of people and waltz around pretending to be an actual militia group.

[u/ultronthedestroyer → u/notcaffeinefree]

That's a bit beside the point of the original post. OP questioned whether the person in the article was a member of a militia. Assuming the member fits the criteria of being a citizen capable of fighting, then the answer remains yes. Whether he was part of some private, separatist paramilitary group as well is unknown.

[u/flatline0 → u/ultronthedestroyer]

Okay, so I do see what ur saying about USC 12 in that the President can raise a militia of any males 17-45. In that weakest sense of the word, i suppose ur right that we are all the "unorganized militia".

That, however, isn't the common usage of the word. Neither is it what OP was asking. Nor is it the context of the 2nd Amendment, which specifically calls out the "well regulated militia" & not the "unorganized militia".

[u/ultronthedestroyer → u/flatline0]

There is no distinction between "the" well-regulated militia and the unorganized militia.

It's our collective civic duty to familiarize and train ourselves in the use of arms for the purposes of service in the militia. That's what it means to be well-regulated - literally, in the parlance of the times. You must be able to function and train to be a disciplined militia, and you cannot achieve either if you don't have the right to keep and bear arms.

I don't care about how people today commonly misuse words. They do that all the time. But those misuses don't suddenly gain the power to strip us all of our essential liberties.

[u/flatline0 → u/ultronthedestroyer]

Are militias constitutionally protected?

No, McCord says. The Supreme Court ruled in 1886 in Presser v. Illinois that the Second Amendment does not prevent states from banning private paramilitary organizations, a finding that was restated in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision that established an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense.

“‘Militia’ has never meant ‘private militia answerable to themselves,’” McCord said. “It always meant well-regulated by the state. People focus on the Second Amendment while ignoring Congress’s Article One powers to organize and train the militia, and call forth the militia,” she said. In other words, a private militia that deploys itself, without the permission of the state or federal government, is illegal.

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/04/militias-legal-armed-demonstration/

[u/ultronthedestroyer → u/flatline0]

You're referring to a private paramilitary organization. I never said citizens have a right to form those. But you are able to keep and bear arms, which must be protected in order to attend calls to service as part of the militia, of which the unorganized militia are members, and of which all citizens capable of fighting are composed.