# Right to Open carry? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2018, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535 "2018-07-25T02:17:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/161 "2018-07-29T03:28:32Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I agree with Bone, however, your suggestion that because short barreled shotguns and handguns are not military weapons (why I don’t know) then something like a fully automatic M-16 which indisputably is a military weapon is something the government could not prohibit, no? From wiki: \* In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”[49] The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the “in common use at the time” prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”), which may not by itself protect machine guns: “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.”[50]\* [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO) \*"Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men…This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. \* ---
**Author:** ![betterlifethroughchemistry](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/betterlifethroughchemistry/32/3094_2.png) [@betterlifethroughchemistry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betterlifethroughchemistry)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/162 "2018-07-29T04:37:34Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I agree. If it’s obsolete, if it is something that we, the people no longer want or need, then the right thing to do is a new Amendment to essentially vacate or alter the 2nd to say clearly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed, that there isn’t a ‘right’ to keep and bear arms, protected by the Constitution and that arms are like any other item someone can own…subject to regulation or banning depending on the public’s safety needs and concerns. This won’t automatically ban guns, but it will make it clear that it is no longer a protected right in the Constitution and will open the way for states to decide what stance they are going to take moving forward. Many states/cities WANT more stringent gun control, even to the point of total bans on whole categories or even all guns outside of police and the military, and this would enable them to do this without violating the Constitution. Here is the process to change an Amendment to the Constitution, so please feel free to initiate a process to nullify the Second Amendment…best of luck to you… > **[Constitutional Amendment Process](https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution)** > > The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),... ---
**Author:** ![betterlifethroughchemistry](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/betterlifethroughchemistry/32/3094_2.png) [@betterlifethroughchemistry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betterlifethroughchemistry)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/163 "2018-07-29T04:58:00Z")
In all of the 2nd Amendment/Gun Control arguments I see on the SDMB, I wonder, how many of the respondents on this thread have actually handled a firearm… I was taught at an early age how to handle, clean and shot…gun control is BRASS, breath, relax, aim, slack and squeeze…if one is respectfully taught how to properly handle a fire arm, it’s not a mystery… EDIT: Every fire arm we owned was absolutely legal ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/164 "2018-07-29T05:30:53Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Ultimately my position on this is that (a) the 2nd Amendment serves no useful purpose in the modern world, but would normally be harmless rather than actively harmful, just like equally archaic Third Amendment is harmless, except that (b) years of drumbeats and propagandizing by the gun lobby have perverted this archaic amendment into a proactive promulgation of a public hazard, blocking rational gun control and creating a public danger so great that it’s problematic even for bordering nations. Everything you’ve written here has no basis at all in the law. That’s fine of course but what it does is color your interpretation on matters of actual law which leads you to such erroneous conclusions as you’ve drawn regarding Miller. > [@](#): > > That completely misses the point. My quote from the _Miller_ ruling in #150 makes it crystal clear that the militia was ruled to be the sole purpose and justification of the 2nd Amendment,… No. Not even close. Miller does not stand for this in any way. Two points here - First the as has been explained, Miller was about the types of weapons, not who may keep and bear them. \*\*Do you understand that? \*\* Second, SCOTUS never held the view you are espousing wrt to Miller. Not once. The dissents you seem to gravitate to, notwithstanding. This idea that the militia was the “sole” purpose of the 2nd is as misguided and wrong as when you asserted that the 2nd amendment “granted” rights. > [@](#): > > But in the course of his dissent on the lawful-search issue, which is what that case was about, he offered an opinion on _Miller_, in line with everything I’ve been saying, and AFAIK no justice disagreed with him on the militia aspect of _Miller_, and indeed AFAIK no Supreme Court ruling ever did until Scalia architected the _Heller_ fiasco. What’s silly about this is that you think the dissent carries weight as a matter of law. Sure, he had a view, but it’s not one endorsed in any way by the court. Of it were, Thomas’s views on Roe could be held as binding precedent! > [@](#): > > . I would imagine it’s because neither of those weapons are very useful in battle. and yet our military purchases hundreds of thousands of handguns. Perhaps they have a better idea as to what is useful. Like short barreled shotguns and carbines. * * * You’re right though, perhaps we have to agree to disagree. But every time you trot out the militia nonsense and Toobin it’s a joke that will be rebutted. It’s an unserious position that except for those motivated by desires for more gun control, wasn’t taken seriously at the time he made the comments and is certainly disregarded as nonsense now. And more importantly, as a matter of law you argument is dead. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/165 "2018-07-29T07:17:50Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > From wiki: \* In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”[49] > > The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the “in common use at the time” prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”), which may not by itself protect machine guns: “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.”[50]\* I have faulted Scalia’s logic in this part extensively in the past. The only reason that machine guns are not in common use or commonly possessed by gun owners is because they were effectively outlawed by the National Firearms Act in 1934. Is Scalia saying that if the government violates the Constitution long enough it becomes Constitutional? What if when the first automatic rifle was invented by the military (I think in 1895?) Congress passed a law saying that henceforth no citizen can possess this? Constitutional because not yet in common use or possession? Could Congress pass a law saying that only guns that are in common use right now may forever be possessed in the future? If not, why not? By definition, these future guns will never be in common use and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment. By what measure do we decide the generality? Semi-automatic weapons are pretty common, but not a specific model. What locality do we use? Prior to Heller, handguns in D.C. were not common at all because they were banned. Why the deference to the NFA but not the D.C. handgun ban? In what other area of constitutional law can a particular law act as its own justification? Scalia really got that part of it wrong. ETA: And the ban on possession by felons and the prohibition of carry in schools or government buildings are not “longstanding” at all. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/166 "2018-07-29T12:45:25Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > an overwhelming majority are opposed to the type of gun bans you seek What type of gun bans do you refer to? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/167 "2018-07-29T12:48:04Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The farcical nature of the “need for a militia” lies precisely in the uselessness of such a concept when there is a standing army, navy, air force, and other standing units of the most powerful military in the world. But what if the government turns tyrannical? Huh? What then? We need those AR-15’s to defend liberty \*against \*that standing army, navy, and air force, and never mind what else the Constitution may say about suppressing insurrections. Haven’t you been paying attention? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/168 "2018-07-29T17:09:52Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > But what if the government turns tyrannical? Huh? What then? We need those AR-15’s to defend liberty \*against \*that standing army, navy, and air force, and never mind what else the Constitution may say about suppressing insurrections. Haven’t you been paying attention? :rolleyes: You misquoted me. I did not make that statement. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/169 "2018-07-29T20:49:08Z")
That was directed at other participants (plural) in this thread who have made that claim, in all apparent seriousness too. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/170 "2018-07-29T22:32:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > First the as has been explained, Miller was about the types of weapons, not who may keep and bear them. \*\*Do you understand that? \*\* Obviously, the ruling was about the type of weapon. But the ruling centered fundamentally on the question of the use of such a weapon in militias, and what is pertinent here is that use in militias was the criterion by which 2nd Amendment protection was judged. If one imagines such an amendment written with no mention of militias and enumerating instead a constitutional right of citizens to keep firearms for personal defense, it’s obvious that _Miller_ could never have been decided the way that it was, and would have been decided in the opposite way. The point I’m making is the rather extraordinary way in which the militia aspect has been deprecated over the years in the service of gun advocacy, reaching the culmination of this process in _Heller_ where for all intents and purposes it was deemed altogether irrelevant. You surely could not possibly believe that Scalia or any of the conservative justices today would have ruled on _Miller_ as the other justices did in 1939. Scalia would have dismissed it in a nanosecond, without a second thought. > [@Bone](#): > > This idea that the militia was the “sole” purpose of the 2nd is as misguided and wrong as when you asserted that the 2nd amendment “granted” rights. I’m aware of the fanciful notion that rights are supposed to be inherent, not “granted”. Yet in the vast majority of the world’s democracies no one imagines any inherent right to own a gun. It’s not that you can’t have one, it’s that asserting the inherent right to have one makes about as much sense as claiming an inherent God-given right to own a hammer or a screwdriver. And if and when the 2nd Amendment were to be abolished, then so would this ideological artifice. The practical difference would be that reasonable gun control would become possible. > [@Bone](#): > > What’s silly about this is that you think the dissent carries weight as a matter of law. Sure, he had a view, but it’s not one endorsed in any way by the court. Of it were, Thomas’s views on Roe could be held as binding precedent! Since I don’t believe dissent carries weight in law, it’s strange that you accuse me of such a belief. I have, however, in the past quoted a dissent like that in _Heller_ as nothing more or less than articulate and learned expressions of a particular point of view. In this case it’s particularly misleading to call my William O. Douglas quote a “dissent” without further explanation, because it implies that the majority disagreed with it; in this case, however, he was dissenting on an entirely different matter and the record doesn’t show (AFAIK) whether or not other justices agreed with his view on handgun regulation, since that wasn’t what the case was about. > [@Bone](#): > > You’re right though, perhaps we have to agree to disagree. But every time you trot out the militia nonsense and Toobin it’s a joke that will be rebutted. It’s an unserious position that except for those motivated by desires for more gun control, wasn’t taken seriously at the time he made the comments and is certainly disregarded as nonsense now. Let’s by all means agree to disagree, but I’m just going to point out here that calling the legal analysis of someone like Jeffrey Toobin “nonsense” and “a joke” stretches credulity, particularly when the two articles I cited (one written by Toobin, the other by a renowned professor of American history at Harvard) appeared in the _New Yorker_, one of the most respected publications in America due largely to the quality of its writing and analysis. If one were to cast about for another publication of the stature of the _New Yorker_, one that might come to mind would be the _Atlantic_ – in which the following appeared a few years ago, written by Saul Cornell, the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University: _Heller_ and _McDonald_ cast aside more than 75 years of established precedent to hold that individual citizens have a right to bear arms for personal use. Scholars and judges on the left and right have attacked the two decisions as incoherent and historically dishonest. … there is nothing conservative about Thomas and Scalia’s vision of the Constitution. Their theory of gun rights is downright radical—and would have shocked the framers of the Second Amendment. > **[Guns Have Always Been Regulated](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/guns-have-always-been-regulated/420531/)** > > The effort of some U.S. Supreme Court justices to extend the Second Amendment’s protections to all guns in common use is at odds with its history. Like many things in this complicated world, there are no absolute truths here, other than the plain unvarnished facts about gun violence in America. We all have our beliefs, ideologies, and preferences. But to call Toobin’s analysis and many other like-minded analyses “nonsense” and “a joke” is just ideological sophistry. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/171 "2018-07-29T22:43:20Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The point I’m making is the rather extraordinary way in which the militia aspect has been deprecated over the years in the service of gun advocacy, reaching the culmination of this process in _Heller_ where for all intents and purposes it was deemed altogether irrelevant. . Because it is altogether irrelevant. If you read the Founding fathers thoughts, the militia was composed of everyone\*. Thus, everyone can keep and bear arms. \*Everyone was in the militia. \* The Founding Fathers would be totally scandalized by the idea of the militia being the National Guard, which has been completely federalized, so that is it effectively a reserve for the standing army. The militia is everyone. - which then was all white males. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/172 "2018-07-29T23:21:00Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The Founding Fathers would be totally scandalized by the idea of the militia being the National Guard, which has been completely federalized, so that is it effectively a reserve for the standing army. Don’t you think they’d be even more scandalized by the \*existence \*of a standing army? That’s what all the fuss was about, remember. Tell us: If the militia clause wasn’t intended to mean anything, why did they bother putting it in? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/173 "2018-07-29T23:35:18Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Thus, everyone can keep and bear arms. > > \*Everyone was in the militia. \* The unfortunate fatal flaw in your argument is the necessity of the word “was” instead of “is” in the last sentence. If one has to transliterate it for the present day, using the verb “is” for the present tense, the appropriate sentence is then: \*No one is in the militia. \* Thus, following your logic, _ **no one** _ can keep and bear arms! More generously, no such guarantee has any relevance in the present day. I’ve cited a number of such opinions, all extremely critical of Scalia’s reasoning in _Heller_. As a matter of fact, I forgot to mention that I also found the opinions of a number of conservative commentators who _ **support** _ the Heller outcome who also believe that Scalia’s logic was deeply flawed, reaching what they applaud as a desirable outcome from a badly reasoned argument. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/174 "2018-07-30T00:39:46Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Don’t you think they’d be even more scandalized by the \*existence \*of a standing army? That’s what all the fuss was about, remember. > > Tell us: If the militia clause wasn’t intended to mean anything, why did they bother putting it in? Because, as has been said, they were against a strong standing army, but in favor of all the people being the Militia. But in fact, in the first draft, they left that out. It was only added in at the insistence of the Anti-federalists who wanted to make sure the right for us to bear arms in the militia of the whole people was enshrined. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/175 "2018-07-30T00:44:17Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The unfortunate fatal flaw in your argument is the necessity of the word “was” instead of “is” in the last sentence. > > If one has to transliterate it for the present day, using the verb “is” for the present tense, the appropriate sentence is then: > > \*No one is in the militia. \* > > Thus, following your logic, _ **no one** _ can keep and bear arms! > > . It is true, that by extra-Constitutional means, the Militia has been subsumed into the standing Federal army. But as SCOTUS has ruled time and time again, you can’t take away a Constitutional right by Congress passing laws. However, we’re talking about the intent of the Founding Fathers and writers. Of course, one can go by that only 18th century printing presses are “free”, computers, the internet, modern presses, blogs, etc, no longer have the freedom of the press. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/176 "2018-07-30T00:49:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Don’t you think they’d be even more scandalized by the \*existence \*of a standing army? That’s what all the fuss was about, remember. > > Tell us: If the militia clause wasn’t intended to mean anything, why did they bother putting it in? Tell me, if the " the right of the \*people \*to keep and bear Arms, " wasnt intended to mean anything why didnt they write the right of the \*militia \*to keep and bear Arms? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/177 "2018-07-30T05:38:24Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That was directed at other participants (plural) in this thread who have made that claim, in all apparent seriousness too. No. You put my name on a quote that I never made. I don’t want to report it because it was clearly an innocent mistake. Please acknowledge that I did not make the statement that you attributed to me inside the quote box. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/178 "2018-07-30T06:41:55Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Tell me, if the " the right of the \*people \*to keep and bear Arms, " wasnt intended to mean anything why didnt they write the right of the \*militia \*to keep and bear Arms? Because in those days, the only way a militia could have any Arms was if each individual brought his own. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/179 "2018-07-30T07:13:32Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > You misquoted me. I did not make that statement. > [@UltraVires](#): > > No. You put my name on a quote that I never made. I don’t want to report it because it was clearly an innocent mistake. Please acknowledge that I did not make the statement that you attributed to me inside the quote box. I fixed the quote attribution in post #167 that originally indicated it was from you. The post that was quoted in post #167 was actually from wolfpup. It appears to be accidental. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/180 "2018-07-30T12:41:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Tell me, if the " the right of the \*people \*to keep and bear Arms, " wasnt intended to mean anything why didnt they write the right of the \*militia \*to keep and bear Arms? You’ve already told us. _At the time_, the militia \*was \*the people. Providing that it could be armed with the citizen-soldiers’ own weapons, not just those stored in state-owned magazines, saved money, too. It didn’t become a standing army until shortly afterward. > [@DrDeth](#): > > It is true, that by extra-Constitutional means, the Militia has been subsumed into the standing Federal army. No case was ever brought contesting that in 1907 or ever since, and it’s getting a little late for it now, don’tcha think? Do you have an answer for the question on the table? > [@chappachula](#): > > Because in those days, the only way a militia could have any Arms was if each individual brought his own. Next time you’re in Williamsburg, go take a tour of the Magazine. Or read the Articles of Confederation, which was actually the Constitution of the time: > [@](#): > > but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535.md?page=10)