[Pyxl101]

In historical context, the “militia” was everyone, every able bodied person who could participate in common defense. It wasn’t a specific organization like we’d think of today

Beyond that, the right is entirely unconnected with service in a militia. That clause at the beginning “A well-regulated Militia …” does not scope or bound what comes next; it offers one explanation for why that right is protected.

SCOTUS explained the historical meaning of these words in more detail in District of Columbia vs. Heller, including an in-depth examination of the language as part of its opinion that the right is an individual right.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Hell...

The SCOTUS decision itself is quite readable.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...

Notably:

> Held:

> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[dmoy]

> In historical context

In current federal legal context, the "militia" is all men between like age 18-45, plus all people in the national guard, or something like that. That's what the US CFR says.

[Aloisius]

Are we really to believe that slave states ratified the 2nd amendment with the belief that they were giving every individual the right to keep and bear arms?

Because that seems absurd given their rather large population of slaves.

[herewulf]

Worth noting that this was a 5 vs. 4 ruling and thus reeks of politics.

[15155]

Worth noting that Caetano was unanimous - including some of the most staunchly left-leaning Justices in the history of the Court.