ricketyclick

Doc Russia clarifies the Second Amendment with a clever bit of substitution:

while we may not like what the second amendment says inn some places, we cannot choose to quote “a well-regulated militia” while we ignore “shall not be infringed,” or vice versa. I think that we have been focusing too much on the word militia, and too little on well-regulated. After all, what would be the difference between a well-regulated militia, and a poorly-regulated one?

Training.

It was a revelation to me, and when it occurred to me, I was actually a little pissed that it had not occurred to me earlier. Why are even gun banners okay with cops carrying guns? Because they are trained to do that. Why is a seventeen year old flying gang colors with a machine gun terrifying, but the same seventeen year old with a machine gun is reassuring when he wears the uniform of a US Marine? Because the Marine is trained to use the machine gun, and the uniform is the outward sign of that training.

Think about it. The militia was a group of unpaid citizens who volunteered to go through the training necessary to bear arms in the field against aggressors. To shorten this, let us substitute “militia” for “an armed body of citizen volunteers.” If we now apply “well-regulated” to mean “training,” the second amendment seems to become somewhat clearer.

“A trained, armed body of citizen volunteers, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

…

So, how would this play out in [D.C. v. Heller], should the Supremes decide to rule along these lines? Well, it would be a simple matter of saying that whatever requirements the states place upon what the lowest level of training one must have to carry a gun as a public servant is, then that is the level which allows a public citizen to carry the same gun.

The more that I think about it, the more I like this idea, for several reasons.

First, it actually clarifies the constitution, instead of either taking sides on an issue, or kicking the can down the road. Second, it is consistent with the rest of the constitution in its tradition of setting up powerful interests in competition with each other. So, you have a state which must reconcile what it will allow its citizens to do, and then holding its own agents to the same standards. So, this effectively eliminates the possibility that the state governments will say that it’s okay for their cops and political allies to defend themselves, but the average citizen cannot. Along the same lines, it will help to diminish the growing ‘us versus them’ mentality in many police departments where they hold cops to one standard, and “civilians” to another (never mind the fact that unless you are subject to the UCMJ, you are a civilian). It also eliminates the ridiculous situation where a retired combat veteran MP is not allowed to own a gun, but the city dog catcher, who has had no formal firearms training, can.

This solution also allows for the individual states to decide what requirements are appropriate for them, and does not force Hawaii to conform to the same standards as Texas, which is also consistent with the manner in which the constitution was written with strong states’ rights.

…

This training threshold would be the highest standard that the state could impose upon the individual, as anything more would be considered unreasonable. The State would of course retain the ability to loosen its requirements for citizens, and may, indeed, not have any requirements, should it so choose.

[Emphasis and minor spelling and grammar editing mine.]

Want to talk about “reasonable regulation”? This is what it looks like. Gun-grabbers often talk about how you have to be trained and licensed to drive a car, but guns are “completely unregulated”. [Scare quotes on that last because, of course, in most jurisdictions it's simply not true--and in some jurisdictions, such as D.C., New Jersey, and Chicago, it's scarily not true.]

Here’s my take on militia training. I should emphasize that this training must be also be available to adults, for those who didn’t take the suggested high school course.

Also, as noted in my militia article, passing this level of training must not be a prerequisite of home firearm ownership. Disabled persons have the right to defend themselves from their wheelchairs or even beds. Nevertheless, I think it’s reasonable to impose legal training requirements, and possibly even a very minimum range requirement. (If you can’t hold your aim on a target seven yards away, sorry, but you are a hazard to your neighbors. Otherwise, this is a good goad to acquiring your license before being confined to your bed.)

Of course, while age or infirmity might disqualify from active militia service, your right to arm yourself in your home must never be revocable except by due process–which means jury trial, not some pissant administrative hearing that takes place out of your notice.

===

In his previous article, Doc Russia makes it clear why we must be free to arm ourselves:
Youtube Video Link