I didn’t intend to suggest that they redefined the word, I didn’t say that as such, but I agree that they may have made official changes to the word (splitting it, as you say) in some fashion.

It does read a bit like a federal power play meant to consolidate power, though the re-framing of the word “Militia” was not subsequently used as a way to undermine the 2nd amendment, as one might suspect if that were the case. One must wonder if the NRA (established in 1871), or another interested party, had any hand in influencing Charles Dick’s advancement of this legislation.

To me it reads more as a way to protect the 2nd amendment’s “militia” verbiage from scrutiny.

I don’t know any lawyers personally, so I can’t ask them. It sounds as though you might have some sources you could provide, though, if you’re parroting them? I’d love to read more if you have any links handy. I tried searching the web for the phrase but was unsuccessful.

I did find the Wikipedia article on the word “militia” and it suggests that the accepted “official” definition may have been changed by the “Militia Act of 1903”.

I do find it interesting how one can change the constitution by making official changes to the meanings of language, without a constitutional amendment. That seems concerning.

So, a militia, in your interpretation is:

“A group of able bodied males who posses firearms and who are organized, in good working order, by their local government.”

Or do I have it wrong? I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, only to understand.

“Well regulated” translated from 1700’s speak just means “in good working order”, not meaning regulated by a bureaucracy issuing permits.

Assuming that to be true, what does “militia” mean when translated from 1700’s speak?