I have a question regarding the phrase “well-regulated”. In the aftermath of the Aurora, Co. shootings, a local talk show host keeps referring to this phrase and emphasizing the phrase “well-regulated”.
I have been doing a little research into Federalist paper no. 29 by Alexander Hamilton which begins to define what well-regulated meant to the founders.
Do you have any other papers I should read to get a clearer meaning on well-regulated?
Page 22 of the Supreme Court’s opinion in DC v. Heller discusses this issue. Not that what the Supreme Court thinks is necessarily correct (I haven’t researched), but still a source. Link to the opinion below…
Even if such people were right about the text of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms would still be protected under the Ninth Amendment, which protects customary rights not enumerated elsewhere. The right to bear arms was such a right for Englishmen.
Interesting that the Confederates put the exact same “2nd amendment” language in their constitution.
EXCEPT the confederates used the upper case for “State”
This gives support to the argument that the right to bear arms was required to protect the rights of the sovereign individuals (as Mr. Woods states :”The peoples of the states are the sovereigns”) who as members of one of the sovereign States of the Confederacy (which sovereignty is made explicit in the Confederate Constitution) would need such right to bear arms.
The timing of the adoption of this provision is important as the confederates clearly had in mind that they might be attacked by a tyrannical foreign/domestic invader,
Was about to make a post about this same issue, so I’m glad I saw this. Is anyone clear about what the founders meant by well-regulated or is this not specified properly anywhere? Dr. Woods makes a good point about the 9th amendment, but I’d like to know if it’s still technically covered under the 2nd amendment or not.