what if.....?

[TeddyR]

24. "Well regulated"

In the Second Amendment simply means a well-trained or smoothly functioning militia. I don't think I've seen any serious argument that it means anything else. In fact, the notion that the founders intended "well regulated" to mean subject to strict control or regulation is completely at odds with the language of the Amendment itself. For example, suppose the Amendment read "A militia subject to stringent regulations being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In that iteration, the statement of purpose in the first clause is completely disconnected from the right guaranteed by the second clause. And even if the "militia" were subject to some sort of strict regulation, there is no reasonable reading of the Second Amendment that conditions the "right to keep and bear arms" on service in a militia. Finally, the Amendment prohibits government interference on the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms, i.e. everyone, not the right of the "militia."

And to clarify, I'm not arguing that the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited. No right guaranteed by the Constitution is unlimited. What I am arguing is that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from unreasonably infringing on that right. I don't know what the limits are on such infringement -- several courts have upheld bans on "high capacity" magazines, typically defined as magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Courts have also upheld assault weapon bans. And the Ninth Circuit recently upheld a pretty draconian California concealed carry law. However, it is also clear that a ban on handguns in the home would be unconstitutional.