A virtual cottage industry has emerged among people finding James Talarico clips espousing everything from declaring his campaign meat-free to there being six genders to God being non-binary. One recently uncovered video from a meet-and-greet, however, attracted my interest and deepened my concerns about Talarico. It shows Talarico explaining why sweeping gun control laws do not violate the Second Amendment. The reason, he declared, is that the Second Amendment expressly embraces gun controls by referring to the right as “well regulated.”
In the clip, Talarico mocks those opposing gun control measures and bans as not taking the time to actually read the Amendment:
“A lot of politicians like to talk about the Second Amendment. Very few have actually read the Second Amendment, because, if they did, they would know that the words ‘well regulated’ are right there in the text of the amendment itself.”
What he omits is the word following “well regulated”: “militia.”
It is hardly a long read, so here is the language:
“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.”
The term “well regulated” was not a reference to regulation in the contemporary sense. It was used to mean orderly or well-maintained. Militias were considered the backbone of the American military, particularly by those who feared a standing army. Some militias were less capable than others in the Revolutionary War. A well-regulated militia meant state militias that were combat-ready.
The individual right to possess guns was viewed as central to maintaining such militias. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a “well regulated militia” was not a limitation but a justification for the individual right.
Notably, Talarico’s rationale is different from the classic interpretation against reading the Second Amendment as an individual right. Under that construct, it is the word “militia” that conditions the rest of the amendment, stating the purpose of the right to possess firearms. It is not that the militias are “well regulated,” but rather that possessing guns was protected in order to (and to the extent of) maintaining militias.
Many of us reject that view and believe that the drafters were protecting a long-held and cherished individual right. The reference to the militia was to a common rationale or justification for protecting that individual right.
Talarico made the comments in support of a ban on certain commonly used guns such as an AR-15. Notably, those bans will soon be before the Supreme Court after the justices accepted review in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.
The grant of certiorari follows the Court striking down Hawaii’s “Vampire Law” in Wolford v. Lopez, which barred gun owners with concealed-carry licenses from bringing guns onto private property unless they had explicit permission from the owner. That decision again reaffirms the individual right under the Second Amendment and clearly does not embrace Talarico’s “well regulated” rationale for gun control.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
This column also ran on Fox.com
There is only ONE clause in the Second Amendment: “The right to keep and bear arms…” The militia part is an absolute construction, a sort of adjective that modifies the entire rest of the sentence. We know it’s not a clause bc it lacks a verb.
*. To understand 2A one would need to understand the dynamics of the Civil War. Lincoln had a regular standing professional federal military of 16, 000 men. After Sumter he called upon the states to raise a military of 75, 000 men to put down an insurrection. These men came from Union States. Commenters here most likely are well acquainted with the dynamics.
States formed militias of its men. The people keep and bear arms. There is an insurrection happening in several States, Minnesota, Illinois, California as examples. DJT took a case to SCOTUS recently and regular forces must be exhausted before federalizing national guard troops unless requested by governors.
Interesting civil war history that is applicable today as we see insurrection in several States.
*. The National Guard is a “regular force”. The governor didn’t begin conscription?
*. Talarico isn’t a man of the land. Old world people of great law and order know people can’t learn to shoot well unless they’ve been bred to it. People can’t learn to shoot well in 6 weeks of basic training and old world fathers knew conscription might be a breath away.
Old world fathers actually thought 2A was what should be in preparation, always ready. I hope that helps. War is always a breath away.
Only 3% of Union forces in the Civil War were regular Army
X — You have clarified the original intent of the 2nd. Thank you!
The US Constitution was not written to be read only by lawyers. The common man can read it too and the more direct reading probably more accurately reflects the original intent.
Hint to the Left: clocks advertised to keep accurate time, called Regulators, were common well into the 19th century.
I would say that a properly functiong militia needs to be able to send lots of rounds down range.
If you don’t like the 2nd then amend the Constitution.
Even if you loonie lefties win the trifecta do not expect compliance.
Why didn’t the US ever have oligarchs until the Soviet Union fell and the black marketeers became oligarchs? Communism.causes oligarchy.
VIOLATION OF THE CIVILITY RULE AS IMPUDENT IMPERTINENCE.
BAN FOR LIFE!!!
The US had oligarchs before the USSR even became the USSR. Go back to GO
Quick, name all the Socialist countries that aren’t dictatorships? There are none. No Sweden is a capitalist country, they just have a lot of social programs.
Far-left, far-right, plenty of dictatorships. Radicals need to be avoided. Only people with government experience should be considered for government.
VIOLATION OF THE CIVILITY RULE AS IMPUDENT IMPERTINENCE.
BAN FOR LIFE!!!
A meat free guy who loves BBQ. The guy is a liar that will say anything to fool the liberal fools.
VIOLATION OF THE CIVILITY RULE AS IMPUDENT IMPERTINENCE.
BAN FOR LIFE!!!
Yeah, the liberal mantra, ban everyone that disagrees with me for life. End the first amendment and free speech forever. But believe me, I support democracy, as long as everyone agrees with me.
Do you even realize how foolish you sound? I am sure not, that would take intelligence and self reflection. If you disagree with me debate, but you want to censor. You see you are the problem, you will never be the solution.
He’s NOT “a meat free guy” and never claimed to be one. The whole idea that he ever championed veganism was a stupid joke that some idiots took seriously without doing any checking. He’s still pathetic, but this particular ding on him is invalid.
*. I’ll Google the question. In that way we’ll know the SCOTUS opinion after it’s packed. ☺
*. ^^^Google said yes, Americans have the right to keep and bear arms for self defense. The government has the ability to regulate it. 😂.
You don’t have to google it, it will be hate America and take away all of people’s rights. Only the Communist leadership will have rights.
*. Store up your riches in heaven. What we do resounds in the heavens. Many are chained and shackled to this earthly existence. Pray for them.
Just know that if the Dems take the House/Senate/WH they will end the filibuster and pack the Court with 5 new KJB’s and they will discover that the Framers didn’t think citizens should have guns. Ignoring that citizens of the time all owned guns.
The only thing more stupid than a liberal is a liberal that believes in socialism. There is no such thing as socialism, there is only Communism hiding behind the label of socialism.
*. The context of the thing does matter. Everything the founders had they fought to have it. Consider the psychology of men who fought everyday. They were not going to be at anyone’s mercy.
“being necessary to the security of a free State” to me a reference to tyranny as well. Franklin knew a republic was tenuous and that the people might have to rise up against tyranny.
Still on the books!
10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Why does every lefty have a contrary view of what the Constitution says from what it says?
The mental gymnastics trying to void it’s defense for individual freedom are astouding as evidenced in this example.
Please help me. I can’t decide if Talarico is an idiot or a moron, or both.
Easy, both!
Talarico’s reading of the 2d Amendment cannot be squared with with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller, McDonald, Bruen and Wolford. We do not look to wannabes seeking the political branches’ offices to tell us what our inalienable rights are. We look to SCOTUS. What Talarico is really saying is “Elect me to the US Senate so I can help pack the Supreme Court, and tell you what inalienable rights you don’t have under the Bill of Rights. Without an Article 5 Amendment.” How about NO ?
Talarico’s interpretation makes no sense for the reasons given by the Professor.
I used to think the prefatory clause limited the operative clause but I no longer do.
The operative clause appears to single out “the” pre-existing “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and says that it shall not be infringed.
The 9th amendment refers more generally to unenumerated rights of the people. The 2nd amendment specifically enumerates one of them. The prefatory language appears to explain why it is being singled out and enumerated.
The fact that it was enumerated makes it more susceptible to judicial enforcement than whatever unenumerated rights the 9th amendment was thought to embrace.
Another serving of MAGA daily affirmation spam: attack Talarico to divert attention away the outrageousness of his Republican Senatorial candidate rival Ken Paxton, Texas AG. Here’s a smattering of his history:
2008: failed to disclose investments in companies in which he had a financial interest that received state contracts that he voted to approve;
2013: stole another lawyer’s valuable pen that the lawyer had left behind at a security checkpoint. Security footage captured Paxton pocketing the pen.
2015: Paxton indicted for defrauding investors . Paid $300 K in restitution.
2020 FBI investigation of using his office to help wealthy donor Nate Paul. After the TX prosecutor turned the case over to the DOJ–it was dropped;
2022: Paxton filed lawsuits against Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin–trying to help Trump’s lie about his “victory” being “stolen by fraud”. The SCOTUS threw out the case.
2023: impeachment trial over Paxton using his office to benefit wealthy donor Nate Paul. TX House voted to impeach; TX Senate would not . Impeachment was over firing attorneys who were whistleblowers–it is against TX law to fire people for whistleblowing. 6.6 M was ordered paid to the wrongfully-fired attorneys.
2025: wife filed for divorce because Paxton had a mistress with whom he has been observed cavorting in Europe during the July 4th holiday. There are allegations of mortgage fraud: Paxton is claiming 3 different TX homes as his primary residence to get lower property taxes and homestead exemptions. Failed to disclose homes in Oklahoma, Florida, Hawaii and Utah.
2026: Over the span of two days in February, Paxton took legal action against Bexar County over a legal defense fund for immigrants, asked a judge to declare a Muslim civil rights group to be declared a foreign terrorist organization, and demanded records from a Houston anti-fascist group that posts information about alleged neo-Nazis online.
Paxton also launched an investigation into Austin Independent School District in early February over a student walkout to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement, demanding documents from the district. On Feb. 16, he announced he would be investigating three other Texas school districts that also saw protests, including Dallas ISD, Manor ISD, and North East ISD in San Antonio. “I will not allow Texas schools to become breeding grounds for the radical Left’s open borders agenda,” Paxton said in a statement.
How much was the “valuable pen” worth?
Talk about a weirdo. The lib is number# 1
The operative phrase is actually “the security of a free state” as in the state of being free totally divorced from any political subdivisions. The right of the people to be free backed up, if necessary, by the force of arms. Anything else is just debate noise.
The World According To Crognale
In fact, the operative clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Shall not be infringed is the penalty part, anon.
GRAMMAR, grammar is part of the history and tradition metric. Like man, that’s how I’m feeling about this. I feel like it needs changing, man. Know I mean?
AI Overview
The Second Amendment is divided into two parts: the prefatory clause (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) and the operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”).
The prefatory clause provides context and historical purpose for the amendment, emphasizing the founders’ belief that community militias were vital to protect against tyranny.
The operative clause codifies the actual, enforceable right.In the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the prefatory clause announces the purpose of the right but does not limit the scope of the operative clause.
This affirms an individual, freestanding right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home, that is not strictly contingent on active militia service.
You must be a member of the judicial branch. You need to customize and amend the actual law. You can’t simply read and adhere to it. You know, as in “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” jurisdiction being unqualified and full. The Virginia Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is comprised of two clauses, the prefatory and the operative. The prefatory clause announces the purpose of the right but does not limit the scope of the operative clause.
OT
JUST GO WITH THE FLOW until it’s over. Right, it just all makes so much sense. What if a half white half black man with dreams of his Kenyan Islamic father later adopted by a southeast asian man became president of the United States. It’s perfectly plausible. What would happen? 🤔.