The "well regulated militia" was to be a group of people who had weapons, already knew how to use those weapons, who promised to quickly answer the call of whoever would deploy them, and all knew how to work together to win battles with those weapons.

It was inherent that someone would have a list of who had what in terms of not just guns, powder, bullets, but also horses, saddles, stirrups, carts, firewood, shelf stable food, spare boots, etc.  Everyone understood that at the time. Every state had a system like this.  In fact some had multiple ones. Mercenaries were sometimes used when the militia wasn't well regulated enough.  Everyone thought that was bad and to be avoided.

So there was definitely a state-managed registry of who had which weapons.  And the feds got quite a bit of authority over it originally.  Here's article 1 section 8:

Quote:To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So the next question is, can the Feds go down to the people and say, "you can have a gun, but only if it's part of a well regulated militia". The answer to that is emphatically no. "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," so the federal government can not do this.

Next question, can a state do it? Originally, yes.  This happened all the time.  It was understood that the governor's man could demand that you and your sons join the posse or at least hand over your weapons for their use if they saw fit.  BUT, starting in the early 20th century, this changed.  Federal courts started saying that the 14th amendment gave them the authority to apply the 2nd amendment to the states.  This was probably not the original intent of the 14th amendment.

Finally we have the issue of technology.  Arms back then were understood to be muskets, rifles, and cannons. No pre assembled rounds, no semi automatic or automatic fire.  Unless you're talking to FSG, everyone thinks it is reasonable that the federal government very strictly regulates private ownership of tanks, airplanes, drones, rockets, bombs and bomb making materials, and fully automatic guns.  Whether that list should include some semi automatic weapons, judges have allowed that based on the original meaning of the 2nd and 14th amendments, but they have also struck some such laws down.

Anyhow, unless you are a federal judge or state judge, your primary concern should be "will this actually prevent crime" and "will people actually comply".  Those are easier questions to answer.  If the feds attempted to tightly restrict ownership of weapons that today are commonly owned and operated by millions of people, it would be a disaster.

---

(02-12-2024, 11:46 AM)Sneakers Wrote:

(02-12-2024, 10:36 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: And I'm sure they clearly envisioned a "populace" chock full of mental nut jobs sauntering into synagogues, schools and wal-marts with long clips on AR-15s spraying lead into the defenseless. 

Clearly this was their intent - so we should honor that. 

And if they didn't mean what they chose to write in the amendment, they [BLEEP] that part up.

What's the difference in your scenario between an AR-15 and any one of a hundred semi-auto handguns, other than the fact the assault rifle is big and scary looking?  There is a mental health crisis spreading throughout the country and restrictions on firearms will not solve the underlying problem.  

The simple fact is it's impossible for us to know the full intent of the Founders and even if we did, is strict unwavering adherence the solution or a path to self-destruction? 

I don't believe it's fair to suggest they failed.  There's obviously no way they could have envisioned the world we live in today and crafted language to deal with burgeoning technology and social changes that wouldn't be seen for more than two hundred years.

An AR 15 dispenses more kinetic energy with less recoil than any pistol. Because the gun itself has more mass. This makes it easier to aim and shoot many rounds accurately in many different directions in much less time than any pistol.  It's the ideal weapon for a mass shooting against unarmed targets.

A reasonable regulation could be based on gun weight, or muzzle velocity, or similar characteristics.

---