On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:55:37 -0500, Greg Jacobs wrote: >Perhaps, but how is that a "well regulated militia"? If being regulated >means acting well together in concert then maybe so
There is some support for that proposition. An old posting from Usenet argued thus: >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns >Subject: Re: A well-regulated militia >Date: Thu, 17 Mar 94 22:15:55 -0500 >Note that the term "well-regulated" militia was originated by Andrew >Fletcher, in 1698, in a treatise _A Discourse of Government with >Relation to Militias_ [http://www.constitution.org/fletchr/fletchr.htm]. >The term "well-regulated" did not mean subject to the regulation of >the State, or the chief executive thereof. It meant what we would call >"well-behaved" or "disciplined". Fletcher specifically stated that a >well-regulated militia was one that was not under the command of the >state or chief executive. In other words, accountable only to its >local community. > >The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were familiar with Fletcher, and >used his term in drafting the Constitution. > >In other words, "well-regulated" is a term of art in the common law that >meant "well-behaved". It is not a basis for the position that a militia >must have the sanction of the State to meet or operate. Fletcher's "Discourse" is online at http://www.constitution.org/fletchr/fletchr.htm _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
