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.
I don’t think there is any subject in American history where so few words have generated so much disagreement. Every time there is a public shooting and the subsequent outcry for stricter gun control, the debate inevitably revolves around the Second Amendment. I won’t reargue the gun control issues. That has been done by others better informed and more eloquent than I. I am going to talk about something that most people taking part in this argument seldom address, and probably don’t understand. I include myself in that latter category. What exactly is a well regulated militia, particularly in the context of the US Constitution? We all have a vision of the farmer soldiers at Lexington and Concord standing up to the professional British redcoats. This is an image that has become part of our national identity and the way we think of ourselves as Americans. But from where did it come and how has it evolved? Militias have been a part of our history since the founding of the first English colonies in North America. When those first brave settlers arrived, there was no army to protect them; they were expected to provide for their own defense. There usually was not a formal militia structure, there didn’t need to be. The whole community was the militia. The men did the fighting, and the women and children reloaded muskets, carried powder, and tended the wounded. At times, women and children also took a direct part in the fighting which might be taking part on their farms or even in their homes. As the colonies grew and became more settled, the militia became more structured. Individual colonies passed their own militia laws that specified who was obligated to serve, the condition of service, and the rates of pay. Prominent citizens were appointed militia officers and tasked with organizing and training the citizen soldiers. On the frontier the militia remained critical to the safety of pioneer families. In the more settled portions of the colonies some militia companies had become little more than social clubs and others had ceased to exist altogether. The majority of those that still functioned had little equipment and even less funding. While some militia units served admirably, the performance of the majority of the militia in the Revolutionary War was spotty. Few militia units had the training or the equipment necessary to stand up to the professional British Army in a pitched battle and most had terms of service so short, often one to three months, that they never received the necessary training. Many militia units were called into short term service for guard duty, to garrison military camps while Continental Army soldiers were on campaign, and to help subdue civil unrest. Experience with the regular British Army prior to and during the Revolution left most Americans with a distrust of a professional standing army. Many people believed that their freedoms would best be guarded by a reinvigorated militia; one designed to cure the problems evident during the Revolution. The Militia Act of 1792 was designed to create a well regulated militia. I’m going to include a brief excerpt from the act to help us understand the relationship between the militia and the Second Amendment. “Be it enacted…. That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States…. shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…..That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints…..” The relationship of the Second Amendment to a well regulated militia is clear. Not only are citizens required to be a part of the militia, but they are also required to provide their own weapons of war. There is one key difference from our society today; their weapons were the same ones they used to protect their homes and hunt for food. The 1792 act didn’t solve the shortcomings of the militia. Problems arose with issues of state and federal control, funding, and standardization. During the Mexican-American War, the Civil War and even as late as the Spanish-American War the militia was unable to provide the government with sufficient adequately trained troops. The federal government resorted to the creation of “volunteer” units when it needed to expand the size of the army. These volunteer units were not a part of either the militia or the regular army. The most famous of these was the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, better known as the “Rough Riders.” These experiences led to the passage of the Militia Act of 1903 that repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support. This leads to a question, “Do we still have a militia?” The answer is yes. Most obviously, we have the National Guard, a well regulated militia of citizen soldiers who serve under state control but who can be activated for federal service. Their exemplary service in the 21st century proves that the concept of a well regulated militia is viable when properly supported. I’m sure it will surprise many people because it surprised me, that we still have state level militias that are independent of any federal affiliation. They serve under state control and cannot be called into federal service. They receive no direct funding or support from the federal government, although occasionally they may receive surplus equipment. Twenty-two states have authorized state level militias, also known as state guards or state defense forces. They vary in training and function. Many operate only in a search and rescue, or disaster mitigation function such as supporting pandemic relief programs. Only a few states provide weapons training and have a police type mission in times of civil disturbance. The latter half at the 20th century saw the rise of armed groups that style themselves as militias. They are both left wing and right wing although most tend to be on the far right. The one thing they have in common is a strong antigovernmental bias. They use their self-declared militia status to justify their use of weapons of war. They are among the most vocal proponents of unlimited Second Amendment rights. But is this what the founders had in mind when they drafted this amendment? I don’t think so. They drafted the Second Amendment with the idea of the citizen soldier who would be defending his country. These groups certainly do not meet the well regulated qualification. They have no ties with any governmental entity and are under no supervision or control. If anything, many of them represent a threat to the government and civil welfare. If they want to keep their deer rifles, shotguns, and pistols, fine, just not weapons of war with no purpose other than killing their fellow citizens. That is my grumpy opinion. I’m sure some of you will disagree. If you do, please leave comments and we can discuss it. We may never agree but at least we can air the issues.
A Well Regulated Militia
By John Turley
On July 4, 2022
In Commentary, History
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.
I don’t think there is any subject in American history where so few words have generated so much disagreement. Every time there is a public shooting and the subsequent outcry for stricter gun control, the debate inevitably revolves around the Second Amendment. I won’t reargue the gun control issues. That has been done by others better informed and more eloquent than I.
I am going to talk about something that most people taking part in this argument seldom address, and probably don’t understand. I include myself in that latter category. What exactly is a well regulated militia, particularly in the context of the US Constitution?
We all have a vision of the farmer soldiers at Lexington and Concord standing up to the professional British redcoats. This is an image that has become part of our national identity and the way we think of ourselves as Americans. But from where did it come and how has it evolved?
Militias have been a part of our history since the founding of the first English colonies in North America. When those first brave settlers arrived, there was no army to protect them; they were expected to provide for their own defense.
There usually was not a formal militia structure, there didn’t need to be. The whole community was the militia. The men did the fighting, and the women and children reloaded muskets, carried powder, and tended the wounded. At times, women and children also took a direct part in the fighting which might be taking part on their farms or even in their homes.
As the colonies grew and became more settled, the militia became more structured. Individual colonies passed their own militia laws that specified who was obligated to serve, the condition of service, and the rates of pay. Prominent citizens were appointed militia officers and tasked with organizing and training the citizen soldiers.
On the frontier the militia remained critical to the safety of pioneer families. In the more settled portions of the colonies some militia companies had become little more than social clubs and others had ceased to exist altogether. The majority of those that still functioned had little equipment and even less funding.
While some militia units served admirably, the performance of the majority of the militia in the Revolutionary War was spotty. Few militia units had the training or the equipment necessary to stand up to the professional British Army in a pitched battle and most had terms of service so short, often one to three months, that they never received the necessary training. Many militia units were called into short term service for guard duty, to garrison military camps while Continental Army soldiers were on campaign, and to help subdue civil unrest.
Experience with the regular British Army prior to and during the Revolution left most Americans with a distrust of a professional standing army. Many people believed that their freedoms would best be guarded by a reinvigorated militia; one designed to cure the problems evident during the Revolution. The Militia Act of 1792 was designed to create a well regulated militia.
I’m going to include a brief excerpt from the act to help us understand the relationship between the militia and the Second Amendment.
“Be it enacted…. That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States…. shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…..That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints…..”
The relationship of the Second Amendment to a well regulated militia is clear. Not only are citizens required to be a part of the militia, but they are also required to provide their own weapons of war. There is one key difference from our society today; their weapons were the same ones they used to protect their homes and hunt for food.
The 1792 act didn’t solve the shortcomings of the militia. Problems arose with issues of state and federal control, funding, and standardization. During the Mexican-American War, the Civil War and even as late as the Spanish-American War the militia was unable to provide the government with sufficient adequately trained troops. The federal government resorted to the creation of “volunteer” units when it needed to expand the size of the army. These volunteer units were not a part of either the militia or the regular army. The most famous of these was the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, better known as the “Rough Riders.”
These experiences led to the passage of the Militia Act of 1903 that repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.
This leads to a question, “Do we still have a militia?” The answer is yes. Most obviously, we have the National Guard, a well regulated militia of citizen soldiers who serve under state control but who can be activated for federal service. Their exemplary service in the 21st century proves that the concept of a well regulated militia is viable when properly supported.
I’m sure it will surprise many people because it surprised me, that we still have state level militias that are independent of any federal affiliation. They serve under state control and cannot be called into federal service. They receive no direct funding or support from the federal government, although occasionally they may receive surplus equipment.
Twenty-two states have authorized state level militias, also known as state guards or state defense forces. They vary in training and function. Many operate only in a search and rescue, or disaster mitigation function such as supporting pandemic relief programs. Only a few states provide weapons training and have a police type mission in times of civil disturbance.
The latter half at the 20th century saw the rise of armed groups that style themselves as militias. They are both left wing and right wing although most tend to be on the far right. The one thing they have in common is a strong antigovernmental bias. They use their self-declared militia status to justify their use of weapons of war. They are among the most vocal proponents of unlimited Second Amendment rights.
But is this what the founders had in mind when they drafted this amendment? I don’t think so. They drafted the Second Amendment with the idea of the citizen soldier who would be defending his country. These groups certainly do not meet the well regulated qualification. They have no ties with any governmental entity and are under no supervision or control. If anything, many of them represent a threat to the government and civil welfare. If they want to keep their deer rifles, shotguns, and pistols, fine, just not weapons of war with no purpose other than killing their fellow citizens.
That is my grumpy opinion. I’m sure some of you will disagree. If you do, please leave comments and we can discuss it. We may never agree but at least we can air the issues.