# What is the source for "well-regulated militia" means "subject to a civilian authority"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2018, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246 "2018-02-21T03:59:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/1 "2018-02-21T03:59:39Z")
Years ago, Cecil, when discussing the meaning of the Second Amendment said that “well-regulated militia” meant “subject to a civilian authority” as opposed to “subject to a lot of regulations”. Does anyone know the source of this? I was arguing with someone on Quora about this an am curious. Thanks, Rob ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/2 "2018-02-21T04:30:35Z")
Moved to Great Debates. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/3 "2018-02-21T04:35:14Z")
Not quite sure I want to start yet another gun debate. I was just looking for a cite for Cecil’s comment. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/4 "2018-02-21T05:13:17Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > Not quite sure I want to start yet another gun debate. I was just looking for a cite for Cecil’s comment. In his [column on the subject](https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1114/what-does-the-right-to-bear-arms-really-mean/), Cecil cites Robert Shalhope for the idea, although he doesn’t say he used the phrase. > [@](#): > > But let’s get back to “well-regulated.” A number of serious scholars have disputed the idea that this phrase necessarily means “subject to a lot of regulations.” The historian Robert Shalhope, for example, makes a good case that for the framers it meant “duly constituted” — that is, subject to civilian authority. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/5 "2018-02-21T05:15:19Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > Not quite sure I want to start yet another gun debate. I was just looking for a cite for Cecil’s comment. You may not want to start a gun debate, but unfortunately if I kept it in GQ I would have to stand over it with a shotgun to keep one from breaking out, and I would like to go to bed now.😉 ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/6 "2018-02-21T14:21:12Z")
If it’s of any help, the provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1688 (the assertion of Parliamentary control over the monarch) which is held to be the inspiration for your Second Amendment, read _That the Subjects which are Protestants_ may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.\* How else can “suitable to their Conditions” and “as allowed by Law” be operationalised without some form of civilian authority? \*One of the objections to James II was that he had changed the rules to allow only gentry to bear arms, irrespective of religion: which was seen as arming Catholics and disarming the Protestant lower orders, and aroused fears of the re-imposition by force of Catholic absolutism, as Louis XIV had done in France only a few years before. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/7 "2018-02-21T15:34:16Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > Years ago, Cecil, when discussing the meaning of the Second Amendment said that “well-regulated militia” meant “subject to a civilian authority” as opposed to “subject to a lot of regulations”. Does anyone know the source of this? I was arguing with someone on Quora about this an am curious. > > Thanks, > Rob [Here](https://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/04/regarding-pesky-%E2%80%9Cwell-regulated-militia%E2%80%9D-2nd-amendment-what-exactly-did-it-mean) is an older article that goes over it. > [@](#): > > The term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment actually encompasses both meanings of the term “well regulated” (i.e., “well regulated” as one might consider a clock to be, and “well regulated” as one might think of in a legal framework)! > > “Well regulated” meant that State militias were to be well trained (i.e., they were to gather together and practice, drill, etc., on a regular basis) and that training was to be supervised by the States (i.e., the States were to appoint officers who were to oversee that training). (This was the clock-like aspect of “well regulated”.) > > But at the same time, “well regulated” also referred to the lawful power the Congress (which was comprised, after all, of representatives of the States) was to have over the State militias, that is, Congress was to promulgate and enact a system of rules governing the conduct and/or activity of said militias, as well as the legal authority the President would have over them when acting as Commander-in-Chief. (This was the legal aspect of “well regulated”.) > > In other words, the use of the term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment wasn’t meant to be an ‘either-or’, ‘black-and-white’ proposition, it was meant to be an all-inclusive term that covered all possible aspects of the situation viz a viz militias. There is a lot to this article (the above is just the summary), some of which I disagree with but I think it hits some of the highlights as to what ‘a well-regulated militia’ meant to the people back then. The summary for the TLDR crowd is it meant the militia was well formed, trained and equipped/supplied AND that it was under the control of the governing body directing that militia. I think most interesting is to look at some of the early drafts of the [2nd](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) to see what the intent was, as well as look at the writings of those who drafted it to see what their thoughts were. > [@](#): > > Earlier proposals and drafts of the Amendment > > ``` > And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. > > Samuel Adams, (6 February 1788), reported in Charles Hale, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1856), p. 86. This language was proposed in the Massachusetts convention for ratification of the U.S. Constitution to be added to Article I of that document. > > The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. > > Original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives. original text > > A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. > > Reworded version of the Second Amendment by the select committee on the Bill of Rights, July 28th 1789. AoC pp. 669). > > A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. > > Draft version of the Second Amendment sent by the House of Representatives to the United States Senate, on August 24th, 1789. (Note: When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe). > > A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed > > Revision voted on in the U.S. Senate, September 4th, 1789. > > A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. > > Final version passed by the U.S. Senate; the phrase "necessary to" was added when the proposed Amendment was entered into the U.S. House journal. > > ``` You can see the progression of the committee reworking the words to what they thought better suited what they were trying to convey (they failed miserably), but you can see by the earliest drafts what the emphasis was on, which was a personal right to keep and bear arms. As in Cecil’s article, I think that we need to just acknowledge that times were different then than they are today, that we have a living document specifically for this issue (i.e. times change and the Constitution is a living document that needs to reflect the attitudes of the time it’s currently living in), and if we don’t want a personal right to keep and bear arms any more, if it’s anachronistic, well, we have the means to change that. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/8 "2018-02-21T17:51:15Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You can see the progression of the committee reworking the words to what they thought better suited what they were trying to convey (they failed miserably), but you can see by the earliest drafts what the emphasis was on, which was a personal right to keep and bear arms. Interesting. Seems to me it was mainly about military service and not that the one thing the FFs wanted to be sure Americans had was guns (actually “arms” so really any weapon whatsoever). From you quote above: - And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. **Personal** - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. **Military** - A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. **Military** - A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. **Military** - A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed **Military** - A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. **Military** Except for the first one they keep telling us WHY people get to keep arms and that is for the purposes of maintaining a militia/military. Perhaps more telling is they added it after that first example suggesting they didn’t want to just say the people should have weapons. Period. Full stop. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/9 "2018-02-21T18:00:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Interesting. Seems to me it was mainly about military service and not that the one thing the FFs wanted to be sure Americans had was guns (actually “arms” so really any weapon whatsoever). I think it’s interesting and I like that Wiki cite because it’s easier to look at than slogging through the Federalist Papers and other historical stuff. > [@](#): > > - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. Military I’d say half and half here, though note that the first part was the personal right. But it’s clear they were wanting to address the military aspect as well as the personal right, and it’s interesting how the committee progressed through different drafts on those themes. It’s also interesting that they ended up dropping the religious scruples aspect in the final draft…not sure why that is, to be honest. > [@](#): > > Except for the first one they keep telling us WHY people get to keep arms and that is for the purposes of maintaining a militia/military. Perhaps more telling is they added it after that first example suggesting they didn’t want to just say the people should have weapons. Period. Full stop. Like I said, I think they were trying to kill multiple birds with one stone. Obviously, they needed a military force, and while they had a regular army they definitely needed the militias as well to support and bolster those regulars. They also obviously felt that a personal right to keep and bear arms was important…you can see it in the writings of many of the drafters of the Constitution, especially looking at how they felt the difference was between what they wanted and what the British had and how they thought they could ‘fix’ that system or make it better and freer. What sucks is that they watered down what they were trying to do, and made it not only more complicated but more difficult to understand their intent and what they were getting at, especially down the road a few hundred years, and especially if one isn’t willing to slog through their various writings and thoughts on the subject. But then, they figured they had put in a fudge factor…after all, we can change the thing and add amendments or get rid of them, so they probably thought, well, they will work it out. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/10 "2018-02-21T18:09:21Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > In his [column on the subject](https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1114/what-does-the-right-to-bear-arms-really-mean/), Cecil cites Robert Shalhope for the idea, although he doesn’t say he used the phrase. Following onto this, Robert Shalhope wrote an article entitled The Armed Citizen in the Early Republic (available [here](http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol49/iss1/7/)). Its thesis appears to be, roughly, that the Second Amendment intended to codify a private right to possess arms along with a communal responsibility bear those arms as part of the militia. (Curiously, in Shalhope’s telling, there was a general concern that there might be an insufficient number of arms in private possession). ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2018, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/11 "2018-02-21T23:29:32Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Interesting. Seems to me it was mainly about military service and not that the one thing the FFs wanted to be sure Americans had was guns (actually “arms” so really any weapon whatsoever). > > From you quote above: > > - And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. **Personal** > > - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. **Military** > > - A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. **Military** > > - A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. **Military** > > - A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed **Military** > > - A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. **Military** > > Except for the first one they keep telling us WHY people get to keep arms and that is for the purposes of maintaining a militia/military. Perhaps more telling is they added it after that first example suggesting they didn’t want to just say the people should have weapons. Period. Full stop. You need to view that in the context of the times. Remember, many of the Founding Fathers believed that a standing army was a threat to civil liberties. That’s why there was such an emphasis on militia. The model was that private citizens would assemble into a ready-made group of soldiers, and **they would bring their own military weapons with them**. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/12 "2018-02-22T14:14:14Z")
Another key thing to realize about what the Founders meant by ‘militia’ - the militia [as of 1792](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792) was composed of every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45. The [modern definition](http://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/Documents/hdasa/references/10_USC_311.pdf) is similar, except that it takes away the white and free parts and adds women who are members of the National Guard. So a proposal to restrict arms to non-militia members could only have the effect of disarming most women, the disabled, and those over age 45. All the youngish able-bodied male citizens are members of the militia by definition. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/13 "2018-02-22T15:04:50Z")
However, the Militia Act of 1903 established that the militia is the National Guard, which I think most would consider to be well-regulated, notwithstanding the stories I’ve heard from Guard members about what really happens on that one weekend a month. If you reall want to feel the joy of firing full-auto, you have the right to go find a Guard recruiter and raise your right hand. It’s that simple. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/14 "2018-02-22T15:13:38Z")
This is, of course, false. 10 U.S.C. § 311 is the current law of the land, as I just referenced in the post immediately above. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/15 "2018-02-22T15:15:25Z")
That’s the “unorganized militia” nonsense, right? Tell us, is the 1903 law still in effect or isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/16 "2018-02-22T15:26:59Z")
I express no opinion on your irrelevant tangent about a law that did not change the topic at hand, the United States’ definition of ‘militia’. Tell us, do you believe that [the federal government](https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13-sec311.htm) is mistaken about what the United States defines the militia as? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/17 "2018-02-22T15:57:11Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That’s the “unorganized militia” nonsense, right? > > Tell us, is the 1903 law still in effect or isn’t it? Is this the 1903 law that begins: “That the militia shall consist of of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes-the organized militia, to be known as the National National Guard Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.” ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/18 "2018-02-23T17:28:52Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > Another key thing to realize about what the Founders meant by ‘militia’ - the militia [as of 1792](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792) was composed of every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45. Well, maybe, maybe not. [Here’s Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution](http://constitutionus.com/) > [@](#): > > (The Congress shall have Power) 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; > > 16: 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; It seems pretty clear that the Founding Fathers wanted a Militia to mean something other than a bunch of random men with guns. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/19 "2018-02-23T17:32:15Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > Years ago, Cecil, when discussing the meaning of the Second Amendment said that “well-regulated militia” meant “subject to a civilian authority” as opposed to “subject to a lot of regulations”. Does anyone know the source of this? I was arguing with someone on Quora about this an am curious. > > Thanks, > Rob Aren’t all military subject to civilian authority? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/20 "2018-02-23T21:07:04Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > Another key thing to realize about what the Founders meant by ‘militia’ - the militia [as of 1792](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792) was composed of every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45. The [modern definition](http://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/Documents/hdasa/references/10_USC_311.pdf) is similar, except that it takes away the white and free parts and adds women who are members of the National Guard. > > So a proposal to restrict arms to non-militia members could only have the effect of disarming most women, the disabled, and those over age 45. All the youngish able-bodied male citizens are members of the militia by definition. It occurs to me that, in addition to the effects you mention, it would open the door to legislation empowering the officials in command of the militia to establish controls over the arms in the hands of the militia members (such as requirements that they be stored in gun safes under locked conditions which will be released only upon the order of the proper authorities. To begin with). [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246.md?page=2)