Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm sure the Miller case covers it, but does the application of the 2nd amendment to the States jive with this? If the militias are regulated by the states, how do the states regulate militias and at the same time not infringe the right to bear arms?
|
At the time of the constitution, militia referred to the entire military establishment, and by extension the entire eligible population. States and then towns were alloted soldiers they needed to produce, and they produced them. They usually brought their own guns, because there wasn't much of a government gun budget. But, literally, every male citizen could be called on by his peers to report for duty, and everyone expected to spend some significant time fighting. Remember, this was a country that had seen very little peace over the prior two generations.
By the way, "state" isn't meant as "a state" in the second amendment, but refers to "the state". I can't enlighten you much on Miller; I know a reasonable amount about the military, but really haven't paid much attention to the jurisprudential discussion on this issue. The debates are usually dominated by crazies who already have their mind made up.
