Open Carry in Wilderness Areas

[zimm]

Ok. Please point out the specific writings that refer to "well regulated" meaning "equipped", and I'll give them a look.

If you're referring to Federalist 29, Hamilton does not equate those two phrases as Zimm has, and he also makes a point about the need for some basic organization of the "people at large":

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

I wish such a basic requirement was in place, and that there was such a limited burden placed on the people at large that have chosen to bear arms. If Americans had spent over two hundred years doing so, maybe we wouldn't now find the subject to be such a polarizing topic.

Hamilton goes on to speak to the organization of militias at length, and the absolute need for the people at large to possess arms - they form the militias, after all. The legitimization of militias was at the core of keeping power in the hands of the people so that a despotic federal government would have little hope of turning itself against the citizens. It was a very wise decision made by people that had recently suffered at the hands of a government that saw things differently.

But I'm not seeing "well regulated" meaning "equipped".

Etemology. Dictionarys were not common and the first American word book was 1806. context is what you are looking for.

Contemporary writings refer to the militia as any able bodied male. period. No training required. appreciated maybe, but not necessary.

to be "well regulated" by definition at the time, you had to have immediate access to the material needed at the time of mustering up.

while hamilton my have waxed poetic about regular turnouts, that was never the norm, he did not combine it with the word "regulated" and if that were to be a requirement in the final document, there would need to be a clause stating so, much like the "keep and bear arms" clause.

"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, and the militia shall muster twice a year".

but they didn't put that last part in, did they? If it was assumed "well regulated" meant equipped AND trained, there would be no need to for ANY descriptive clauses and the 2nd would read something like "For the security of a free state, there shall be a well regulated Militia". (training AND equipment assumed, AND contingent upon each other) Therefore, "well regulated" means simply what they took the time to say means. The "keep and bear arms" clause IS the definition.

youre not seeing hamilton use the term well regulated, because youre not seeing the term regulated at all.

 

[zimm]

Some information on the use of the term well regulated.

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

George Mason's view of the term militia.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
George Mason

Yes, for a militia to be in proper working order, it need to be equipped.

 

[zimm]

I saw that. As I added to my prior post, Hamilton's Federalist 29 is at the heart of "well regulated militia", and he doesn't simply mean "equipped". Neither does the explanation above.

Hamilton also used a more nuanced definition of militia, discussing the difference between the "people at large" and more formalized military organizations.

you have no basis for drawing that inference from what he wrote. you are using YOUR personal definition of the word regulation, and fitting his words into it.

in addition, to repeat, training was NEVER part of the definition of militia. merely able bodied male (assumed white).

 

[shade]

Etemology. Dictionarys were not common and the first American word book was 1806. context is what you are looking for.

Contemporary writings refer to the militia as any able bodied male. period. No training required. appreciated maybe, but not necessary.

to be "well regulated" by definition at the time, you had to have immediate access to the material needed at the time of mustering up.

while hamilton my have waxed poetic about regular turnouts, that was never the norm, he did not combine it with the word "regulated" and if that were to be a requirement in the final document, there would need to be a clause stating so, much like the "keep and bear arms" clause.

"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, and the militia shall muster twice a year".

but they didn't put that last part in, did they? If it was assumed "well regulated" meant equipped AND trained, there would be no need to for ANY descriptive clauses and the 2nd would read something like "For the security of a free state, there shall be a well regulated Militia". (training AND equipment assumed, AND contingent upon each other) Therefore, "well regulated" means simply what they took the time to say means. The "keep and bear arms" clause IS the definition.

youre not seeing hamilton use the term well regulated, because youre not seeing the term regulated at all.

As I said, in Federalist 29, Hamilton specifically refers to "a well-regulated militia", and speaks to the point at length. If you don't want to read it, that's fine, but it's there.

For all of your "Etemology" and "Dictionarys", "well regulated" does not equal "equipped", even in the 1700s.

 

[shade]

you have no basis for drawing that inference from what he wrote. you are using YOUR personal definition of the word regulation, and fitting his words into it.

I read it and cited it, and I cited an article about it. If you're too lazy to bother doing the same when refuting me, that's on you.

Far be it from me to try discussing the documents that supposedly underpin your views. I'll leave you and the rest of the horde to it.

 

[shade]

Yes, for a militia to be in proper working order, it need to be equipped.

If only the word equipped had existed way back then.

With your interpretation, a militia could consist of a bunch of people that had never held a gun, but had cases of them provided to them. That's what happens when you twist "well regulated" into "equipped". It's nonsense.

 

[shade]

in addition, to repeat, training was NEVER part of the definition of militia. merely able bodied male (assumed white).

If only we could go back in time and watch you educate Hamilton on that point.

 

[luthj]

 

[shade]

I doubt any good will come from more of this.

I'll Unwatch with a request that everyone enjoy their respective rights to bear arms in a responsible manner, in or out of wilderness areas.

Have a good Sunday, and ...

 

[trackhead]

I frequently carry one in brown bear habitat where I live in AK. Although you have to practice a ton if you want even a remote chance of stopping a big coastal brown bear. Usually they win, if that is there intent. Not sure what you guys have been talking about for nine pages, but I can only guess.

Admiralty Island, where we deer hunt, has more brown bears on that island alone than the entire lower 48. Every year someone has a less than pleasant encounter with a brownie. The outcome is sometimes fatal, sometimes the hunter wins, sometimes they get mauled to within an inch of their lives. Seems like every year we have 3-4 bear maulings in SE AK alone. Gotta stay on your toes when you're travelling alone in bear country. Not as big of a deal when you're making noise in groups. But deer hunting in brown bear country, alone, certainly keeps you on your toes. Especially hauling a dead deer out, hopefully not in the dark.

A lot of people here prefer a chest harness, but sometimes that gets in the way of binocular/range finder if you're hunting. For fishing it's great solution. There is also a strong argument for leaving the gun at home and carrying bear spray. Easier to use, won't shoot your buddy or your leg when you fall over backwards getting mauled, etc. Bear spray sucks above treeline, as it's often windy. I like to have a partner with bear spray, and a back up handgun if I'm hiking. Bear spray in the woods, gun for backup. Gun above treeline (unlikely you will surprise a bear above treeline).

To people who leave their gun in their pack, that won't work. Most bear encounters happen in a matter of 2-3 seconds or so. Most people that shoot bears here during "defense of life and property" do so at point blank or within 5 yards. The common theme is the human falling over backwards as they either trip walking backwards, scared shitless, or the bear diverts on a bluff. I had a friend last year who shot a charging brown bear three times, fell over backwards, and the bear plowed him over like a 900lb linebacker and he never saw it again. Alaska has a specific law that allows for a DLP "defense of life and property" that allows for the killing of black/brown bears for exactly that reason. People here don't do that nilly whilly and very much respect the law for its intent. Thankfully AK isn't overrun by overly sensitive nimwits like the lower 48 and we can have a law that truly has a legitimate life saving use when needed in wilderness.

The caliber argument is another black hole. Most here are running lightweight .44, but the 10mm is gaining popularity. There have been a couple brown bears killed in the last 5 years or so with 10mm, and even one with a 9mm. I say buy something you can actually shoot. It's great if you have that 454 Casull on your chest, but can you hit anything, and can you get more than one shot off? Or does it just make you feel safe?

Got kinda close to this sow when we were fishing, just yelled at her and she went on her way.

 

[GB_Willys_2014]

It also says the well regulated militia and we’re kind of leaving that open to interpretation. People use the parts of the statement that are most convenient to their particular argument.

I know that I am months late here, but Heller puts the question of "well regulated militia" to bed.

Firearm ownership is divorced from militia membership. That is, SCOTUS has determined that citizens may own firearms, of a regulated and common variety, for lawful purposes, including self defense, independently of militia membership.

Apologies if someone else raised this; I didn't see it.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

***

Back on topic: when hiking, I prefer to be as lightweight as possible, so no firearms while backpacking for me.

That said, I will regularly carry a firearm when traveling in a vehicle. Open carry in AZ, generally, and in the backcountry, specifically, is not a problem.