Does Bruen migrate throughout the Constitution?

[RFBfromDE]

The closest dictionary I could find to the adoption of the second amendment in 1791 was

Websters Dictionary 1828​

Regulated​

REG'ULATED, participle passive Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

Once a militia has been organized IT is subject to certain rules and restrictions. I can go along with that.

Until I volunteer or may be conscripted, my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I offer as evidence, the regulator clock.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Once a militia has been organized IT is subject to certain rules and restrictions. I can go along with that.

Until I volunteer or may be conscripted, my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I offer as evidence, the regulator clock.

Before you volunteered or were conscripted you were required to arm yourself at your own expense through purchase or other means with weapons of war including firearms.

From Wikipedia emphasis added (the second amendment was ratified in 1791):

"Second Militia Act of 1792​

The second Militia Act of 1792 was passed on May 8, 1792, and provided for the organization of state militias and the conscription of every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45:

... each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside ...

Militia members were required to equip themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack. Alternatively, everyone enrolled was to provide himself with a rifle, a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shot-pouch, and a knapsack.[10] Exemptions applied to some occupations, including members of Congress, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen."


The musket and bayonet would have been the equivalent to the M-16 in today's army and the 24 cartridges would have been enough ammo to maintain sustained fire for 8 minutes. The alternate rifle would be the equivalent to today's M24 Sniper Weapon System.

 

[Threeband]

Look for Johnson's dictionary.
(1755)


Here you go:

https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=Regulated

To RE'GULATE. v.a.

[regula, Lat.]


1. To adjust by rule or method.Nature, in the production of things, always designs them to partake of certain, regulated, established essences, which are to be the models of all things to be produced: this, in that crude sense, would need some better explication.
Locke.
2. To direct.Regulate the patient in his manner of living.
Wiseman. Ev’n goddesses are women; and no wife
Has pow’r to regulate her husband’s life.
Dryden.

 

[RFBfromDE]

2. To direct.Regulate the patient in his manner of living.
Wiseman. Ev’n goddesses are women; and no wife
Has pow’r to regulate her husband’s life.
Dryden.

I was born too late!

 

[Threeband]

I was born too late!

Miniver Cheevy feels your pain.

 

[ras_oscar]

to the OP:

I believe part of the justification for the SCOTUS ruling was that 2A had in recent history been interpreted differently than the other constitutional rights (balancing of interests, intermediate scrutiny ). They returned 2A to interpretation to the same footing (strict scrutiny ) as other constitutional rights.

 

[Occam]

In today's parlance: Practiced or trained

Practiced, sort of. Trained, no. You have to take the entire context of the 2A's formation and all of the debates, letters, ratification arguments, and the colonists' recent history into account - and we have abundant contemporary written records of all of that.

In short, by "well regulated," they meant it in the same way one might refer to a clock, or a farm - "functional" or "reliably able to do what's needed." Meaning, they knew that if there WAS a need to spin up militias, it was in everyone's interest if the people who would populate those forces were already, personally, not only in possession of their own arms, but encouraged to be good with them. "Well regulated" in the 2A context absolutely did NOT relate in any way to rules or requirements or standards, other than the one rule: no infringement on personal possession and bearing of arms.

The founders - given their experience with the Crown's redcoats - had serious misgivings about the existence of any sort of standing military. But they weren't fools. They wanted to cultivate and protect a well armed, arms-aware general citizenry because it would always be from that well that the nation would drink in a conflict. They really didn't like the idea of a professional military, but came to accept it as inevitable given the size of the gathered colonies and the inevitable pressures from cranky Indians, annoying Brits up in what would become Canada, Spaniards, pirates, and other ne'r-do-wells pursuing their own interests all around the coasts, etc. With that in mind, a key purpose of the 2A was to make sure that if the government (local, state, or federal) DID stand up a professional military of any scope, that it would never have a monopoly on the bearing of arms that could be turned against the citizens by a rogue governor or worse. The founders had just shaken off exactly that situation with the British, and it was foremost in their minds on this topic.

 

[owldo]

If I understand correctly, Bruen concludes that the 2nd Amendment must be read with it's words having the same meaning they had during the period the Amendment was passed. In the Second’s case, this was identified as being between the ratification of the 2nd (1791) and 14th (1868) Amendments.

Does that conclusion apply to the entire Constitution as well as it's other Amendments?

This country is filled with unconstitutional laws that have to be litigated 1 law at a time ! No way to run a country ... Laws should be subject to a constitutional law review board before being allowed into law IMO !

 

[eruby]

Miniver Cheevy feels your pain.

I'll drink to that

 

[Occam]

Laws should be subject to a constitutional law review board before being allowed into law IMO !

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[owldo]

Practiced, sort of. Trained, no. You have to take the entire context of the 2A's formation and all of the debates, letters, ratification arguments, and the colonists' recent history into account - and we have abundant contemporary written records of all of that.

In short, by "well regulated," they meant it in the same way one might refer to a clock, or a farm - "functional" or "reliably able to do what's needed." Meaning, they knew that if there WAS a need to spin up militias, it was in everyone's interest if the people who would populate those forces were already, personally, not only in possession of their own arms, but encouraged to be good with them. "Well regulated" in the 2A context absolutely did NOT relate in any way to rules or requirements or standards, other than the one rule: no infringement on personal possession and bearing of arms.

The founders - given their experience with the Crown's redcoats - had serious misgivings about the existence of any sort of standing military. But they weren't fools. They wanted to cultivate and protect a well armed, arms-aware general citizenry because it would always be from that well that the nation would drink in a conflict. They really didn't like the idea of a professional military, but came to accept it as inevitable given the size of the gathered colonies and the inevitable pressures from cranky Indians, annoying Brits up in what would become Canada, Spaniards, pirates, and other ne'r-do-wells pursuing their own interests all around the coasts, etc. With that in mind, a key purpose of the 2A was to make sure that if the government (local, state, or federal) DID stand up a professional military of any scope, that it would never have a monopoly on the bearing of arms that could be turned against the citizens by a rogue governor or worse. The founders had just shaken off exactly that situation with the British, and it was foremost in their minds on this topic.

The Federalist Papers are a wonderful resource in determining what the mindset of the forefathers was on different parts of the Constitution - A few examples on the thoughts of the forefathers on the 2nd Amendment ...

Samuel Adams stated the Constitution should never be interpreted to “prevent the people from keeping their own arms”.

Additionally, Theodore Sedgwick declared “a nation of freemen who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands” cannot be oppressed.

James Madison was also concerned about the threat a standing army posed to our democracy. In Federalist No. 46, he stated militias formed from an armed populace “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army and thwart any attempt by it to impose autocratic rule.

Thomas Jefferson added, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Anti-Federalists, worried about oppression from within, clearly saw the right to keep and bear arms as extending to all citizens for their personal use.

 

[RFBfromDE]

This country is filled with unconstitutional laws that have to be litigated 1 law at a time ! No way to run a country ... Laws should be subject to a constitutional law review board before being allowed into law IMO !

MOCO has just such a guy. He assured the Council the law was pure!

 

[Billyb]

The Federalist Papers are a wonderful resource in determining what the mindset of the forefathers was on different parts of the Constitution - A few examples on the thoughts of the forefathers on the 2nd Amendment ...

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined." - George Washington in his farewell address.