In DC v Heller, US Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Stevens trade blows over the proper semantic interpretation of the original meaning of having a "well regulated militia". How was the 2nd Amendment's design and goal debated as Madison drafted and presented the Bill of Rights to the Founders?

by persiancaviar

The 2nd Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

To me, the language of the 2nd Amendment itself is very awkward. The final comma seems totally unnecessary in a grammatical sense, and it makes me wonder if in its drafting this awkward wording served some intentional purpose. Justice Scalia focuses on the latter clause of 'the right of the people' before interpreting the 'militia' preamble, while Stevens argued that the 'militia' preamble suggests the Amendment was to protect state militia's rather than individual persons in a state right to bear firearms.

So that leaves me curious if whether the Founders went through the same sort of semantic debate about the Amendment's structure/goal?

voyeur324

I would start with this section of the FAQ, since questions about the "well-regulated militia" are VERY popular on this subreddit.

misyo

This answer by /u/FatherAzerun and this answer by /u/Gregory_K_Zhukov from the side bar addresses both of your questions. Just thought I'd save you the trip.