A thought on the common topic of general militia usage

[BlueTrain]

Does someone here really believe they would be more effective on their own rather than as part of an organized body of armed men (women welcome)? We had better hang together or surely we will hang separately.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The framers chose the term "well regulated militia" because, to them, that term applied specifically to armed men, not under the control of government.

I disagree. That is not what well-regulated means. In common usage today it would be well-trained and equipped. As to the control part of your statement, the facts were that the militia mentioned by the 2nd Amendment were under the authority of the state goevernment and there was no intention whatsoever for them to be otherwise. Since that was already a fact the amendment did not need to restate it. The idea some have on TFL of what the militia is would horrify the Founding Fathers in 1789. The states wanted to be able to arm their miltias, that is what the prefatory clause speaks to.

That's not how the Miller decision seems to read...

You are quoting dicta where the SCOTUS is recounting the history of the militia. Again the COTUS does not say how the miltia is to be armed. The fact that some states chose to arm it with private arms does not mean they had to. In fact as BlueTrain posted earlier many states provided those arms to it's citizens. It was up to the states if and how they wished to arm their militias. That is still true today

 

[zukiphile]

Again the COTUS does not say how the miltia is to be armed.

The COTUS also doesn't tell us which way to vote or what to say, but voting and free speech are still part of the scheme of the COTUS. That the document describes protections generally rather than specifically is not an argument against those protections.

The unorganized militia is a statutory construct, a legal fiction if you will.

To people who oppose any law, they may choose to see it as a fiction. The rights against unreasonable search and seizure, assembly and free speech are also mere fictions unless they are observed.

However, I see a huge danger to liberty when we begin to attach a pseudo-lawful authority to such civic virtue by calling ourselves "militiamen" and then acting accordingly without government accountability or authority.

Seeing people acting without government supervision is not a threat to liberty; it is liberty.

Tennessee, it may not be a liberty you prefer, but arguing that the law isn't real, but a fiction, or that a gap in government observation and control is a threat to liberty is orwellian.

 

[BlueTrain]

No, I think that ignoring the law or interpreting it to suit yourself is the way to anarchy. A scofflaw.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

No, I think that ignoring the law or interpreting it to suit yourself is the way to anarchy. A scofflaw.

Even worse may be making up a "right" that never existed like saying one has a "right" to be in a self-appointed unaccountable "militia" and then acting as though they have legal authority while in posession of firearms. I'd rather face the zombies

 

[gc70]

The Minutemen were a select group of the larger colonial militias authorized by their colonial charters. Some of these charters (like Connecticut's in 1662 included the right of self government) but these militias answered to the colonial governments to answer your question. So yes all legal and legitimate militias MUST be authorized by and answer to a government. Otherwise, they are a mob with guns.

So the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord were an illegal and illegitimate militia, or "a mob with guns" as you say. While the Minutemen and other colonial militias were initially organized and authorized by the British, the moment they turned their weapons against the British they were no longer duly authorized. And they were not answerable to a government until a colonial government was formed after hostilities were initiated.

Sorry that things were not a bit more orderly, but the road that led to our country did start with what you call "a mob with guns."

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Sorry that things were not a bit more orderly, but the road that led to our country did start with what you call "a mob with guns."

GC, in a word; hardly. Our independence was gained by the Continental Army led by a fellow named Washington who answered to a Continental Congress. BTW Washington had little good to say about the militia and argued for a standing army. The minutemen WERE a part of the colonial militia but the they were NOT the gun mob that some who post on TFL seem to think exists today. They were trained and answered to a government. Also, as with the militia GEN Charles Lee didn't think much of them either.

The idea that a mob with guns can do much more than harm is a myth.

You are correct that the colonial militias were not formed to fight the Britsh Government but were used for such against the crown but that has no bearing to modern times. We now have a representative government in place that did not exist then. Had we had such then I suspect we might have remained a part ofthe British Empire a good bit longer. The Founding Fathers just wanted to have a say in the government and they had none so the only alternative was to revolt.

We could have another thread on that of course

 

[gc70]

Tennessee Gentleman, you overlook or dismiss details in defense of your argument.

the road that led to our country did start with what you call "a mob with guns."

That road started with the armed colonists at Lexington and Concord, who were not members of a legal or legitimate militia as you have defined such.

While the Continental Army eventually developed with the structure, organization, and authority that you deem so vital, it was "a mob with guns" and no legal authority other than that of collective self defense of their community that sparked the American Revoluation at Lexington and Concord.

Also, as with the militia GEN Charles Lee didn't think much of them either.

General Charles Lee also had a low opinion of George Washington, commenting that ""Washington is not fit enough to command a Sergeant's Guard".

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

That road started with the armed colonists at Lexington and Concord, who were not members of a legal or legitimate militia as you have defined such.

The road actually started well before then. In September 1774 the Continental Congress endorsed a resolution from Suffolk County, Massachusetts, calling for the colonies to reorganize the militias under leadership friendly to the "rights of the people," setting in motion a series of provincial actions of armed resistance to British policy well before Concord and Lexington.

As stated before, the militias (yes the ones at Lexington and Concord) were legally constituted by the colonies well before hostilities. Now you could argue that they were treasonous to the crown but so was the Continental Congress and the militias answered to colonial leadership, shadow governments which had been around for some years prior. So, your argument that the Revolutionary War started with a mob who had guns is historically inaccurate as it was a well thought out and executed act by the governments (however treasonous depends on your point of view) in the colonies at that time. It was organized by a colonial congress the american people recognized and not a bunch of colonial "bubbas" with guns.

General Charles Lee also had a low opinion of George Washington, commenting that ""Washington is not fit enough to command a Sergeant's Guard".

Which has nothing to do with the thread and is irrelevant to the efficacy of the Minute Men or the miltia.

Regardless of the Revolutionary War, as I have debated before, that is irrelevant to modern times and the fact that the militia is defunct. We shook off a government under which we had no vote, no representation and no legal rights of redress. That is not what we face today and will not in the any reasonable future. The Revolutionary War was a unique circumstance we will not have to repeat. The militia is no more.

 

[gc70]

The militia is no more.

Since you are concerned with semantics, you can provide the term to describe the "civic virtue" of collective self defense.

Originally Posted by gc70
General Charles Lee also had a low opinion of George Washington, commenting that ""Washington is not fit enough to command a Sergeant's Guard".

Which has nothing to do with the thread and is irrelevant to the efficacy of the Minute Men or the miltia.

Quite the contrary. General Lee's military assessment of General Washington speaks to the credibility of his assessment of the militia.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Since you are concerned with semantics, you can provide the term to describe the "civic virtue" of collective self defense.

Two heads (or guns) are better than one? Seriously, there is seldom a need for "collective defense" anymore than there is many other unlikely events. When there is well grab your neighbor and fight 'em off. That's not a militia tho'.

Quite the contrary. General Lee's military assessment of General Washington speaks to the credibility of his assessment of the militia.

Au Contraire, reread my post, Lee had issues with the Minute Men, Washington had issues with the militia in general. Even so, General Lee's assessment of GEN Washington does not make him wrong on the Minute Man issue. Maybe he had a personal conflict with ole George?

 

[Don Randall]

Originally Posted by Don Randall
The framers chose the term "well regulated militia" because, to them, that term applied specifically to armed men, not under the control of government.

I disagree. That is not what well-regulated means.

Okay. Disagree all you want. Did you bother to read the document to which I posted a link?

If you read that document, you would have discovered that the term "well regulated militia" was shown to be a reference -- Not to the King's professional standing army, not to the King's part time "militia", not to any form of militia under the authority of any prince or any other lesser royal or other government authority -- The term "well regulated militia" is ONLY used in reference to armed individuals who are not sponsored by, or commanded by government. The "well regulated militia" is people who come together in time of emergency to protect their country from invasion or from tyranny at home.

Why do I say that? Is it only my opinion? NO - It is not. I say that because that is precisely what is stated in that historical document authored by Parliamentarian Andrew Fletcher.

Now you can say that I am all wrong if you like. That's okay. But, if you tell me I am wrong, it would be helpful to your effort to convince me that I am wrong and you are right, if you provide me with some evidence that my understanding of that article and my conclusions have no reasonable or rational basis.

I am simply offering information found in an historical document which indicates the term "well regulated militia" had a known and accepted meaning and the term was known to the Framers of our constitution and used by them to communicate that particular long established and accepted meaning.

I stated in my note that the Framers of our constitution were Englishmen before the became the first Americans. I say they understood the English language and it's terminology of that day as men of that day would have understood it. I say they appear to have chosen that term intending to communicate one particular thought: That the individual people do have a right to keep and bear arms, meaning to own and carry weapons.

 

[Don Randall]

As to the control part of your statement, the facts were that the militia mentioned by the 2nd Amendment were under the authority of the state goevernment and there was no intention whatsoever for them to be otherwise.

Are you telling me the militia of the states, as were mentioned, explicitly authorized, empowered and protected by the plainly understood and unambiguous language of Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution... Was somehow... What? Forgotten by senile old men? Or are you saying that the Article 1, Section 8 language was defective or deficient?

 

[publius42]

You are quoting dicta where the SCOTUS is recounting the history of the militia. Again the COTUS does not say how the miltia is to be armed. The fact that some states chose to arm it with private arms does not mean they had to. In fact as BlueTrain posted earlier many states provided those arms to it's citizens.

The states of NY and Mass both required citizens to maintain their own militia weapons and ammo in the 1780's, and they were pretty important states at the time. Which are these "many" states where the citizens were not expected to do that? I missed the particular states in your posts and Bluetrain's.

 

[BlueTrain]

I live in Virginia. I wasn't born here, though. I'm an immigrant. My father was born in Carroll County. I was the first one in my line not born in Carroll County since before 1800.

 

[zukiphile]

You are correct that the colonial militias were not formed to fight the Britsh Government but were used for such against the crown but that has no bearing to modern times.

That reasoning is a bradyism. No portion of the COTUS has a bearing on "modern times" unless we have due regard for our legal system. Moreover, each constitutional right limits the power of the federal government, and that principle of limited government does bear directly on "modern times".

An advocate of an expansion of government and a trimming of citizens' rights (expansion of one is always at the expense of the other) can be expected to decry a right he would shrink as old fashioned, but that is a naked plea to ignore the COTUS and our laws.

Tennessee Gentleman, you've often written about your fear of an armed population existing beyond a command structure. Isn't it at least as rational to regret a public and government "armed" with a disregard for the dangers of too much government control, or "armed" with a disregard for law?

In the US, I would suggest that the "mob with guns" for which you have expressed fear have done much less damage historically than "mobs with votes" who have a higher regard for their own anxieties than they have for the COTUS.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

But, if you tell me I am wrong, it would be helpful to your effort to convince me that I am wrong and you are right, if you provide me with some evidence that my understanding of that article and my conclusions have no reasonable or rational basis.

OK Don, that is reasonable, but rather than create a very long post here is a link for you. I have found it very well researched and useful in these sort of debates. It answers a lot of your questions IMO. You should read it all, every part and then we can discuss more if you like. http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq1.asp.

Don, a lot of people post these commentaries (like yours and I did read it) about the miltia from time to time but they really aren't relevant. Why? Because some political leader from the 18th century talking about what a militia should or might be is not as helpful as looking at what the militia was. One is opinion, the other is historical fact. I prefer the facts and not opinions from 200 years ago that may not have context today.

Which are these "many" states where the citizens were not expected to do that?

Here is a better explanation: http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq3.asp read paragraph 3.32.

 

[Al Norris]

Tennessee, why should I hold the ADL as an expert on Militias?

You do know that they are an anti-gun organization, yes? They filed an amicus brief in Heller for the District of Columbia, where they specifically held the view that the 2A should not be incorporated and that the method of Judicial Scrutiny should be the Rational Basis test - A level of scrutiny wherein most every law passes. (side note: expect to see an amicus brief for Chicago, next week, filed either directly by the ADL or in concert with other like-minded groups)

From their own website:

ADL To Supreme Court: States Should Regulate Firearms
High Court Makes Landmark Ruling on Gun Rights
Heller: Brief of 63 Amici​

Using the ADL as an authority on 2A matters, is similar to using the ACLU for the same, and only slightly less smelly than using the Brady Campaign as your "expert."

 

[zukiphile]

OK Don, that is reasonable, but rather than create a very long post here is a link for you. I have found it very well researched and useful in these sort of debates.

Tennessee Gent, the Anti-Defamation League links of which you appear fond do not present a competent analysis of militia issues. As a preliminary matter, they are an explicitly political tract designed to counter claims of those who are legally members of the militia. From your link:

This FAQ was created to weaken the new militia movement by providing an accurate description of the history and law of the American militia. It is an antidote to the politcally motivated butchery of history and misinterpretation of law by the new militia.

Emphasis added. So the authors of your offered authority have a specific political motivation. I do not know or speculate on whether you share their motive, but I do note that you've provided these links several times before this. Your link continues:

The political motivation of this revisionism can be gleaned from a magazine article by Mack Tanner ("Extreme Prejudice," Reason Magazine, July 1995, 43-50). Tanner writes:

"To understand what the militia movement is talking about, one needs to understand a bit of federal law. While most of us never think about it--or even know about it--every American male spends 28 years as a member of the militia, whether he wants to belong or not. United States Code, Title 10, Section 311, describes the militia of the United States as consisting of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age. If we are not members of the National Guard, then we are, by law, members of the unorganized militia who can be called to service at any time by the appropriate legal authority. Any two or more American men can therefore claim to be an association of members of the unorganized militia, just as they might be an association of voters, taxpayers, parents or citizens."

Let's examine what's wrong with this quotation. First, the "unorganized militia" are not like other groups, since the others are voluntary organizations without legal status or statutory responsibilities. The "unorganized militia" is a creation of statute law and a part of the state militias. State militias are a hierarchical form of military organization under civilian political control--hardly a group that bears comparison to the P.T.A. or the League of Women Voters.

Emphasis added. This is poor rhetoric. Tanner doesn't suggest that the militia is like all other groups, or that it is voluntary. He does assert that voluntary associations of the militia are, well, voluntary. So the ADL can't actually find a real problem with Tanner's analysis.

By the way, Tanner is also the author a very good article in the 1990s entitled The Fascist Epithet. I recommend it.


The ADL continues:

Second, Tanner never mentions (and is probably unaware of) the history of the term "unorganized militia," which this FAQ discusses in great detail. The concept was invented in the 1830s by state governments. Federal law first used the term itself in 1903. Since that time, through riot and war, the unorganized militia have never been called to service. It's very unlikely they ever will serve.

Members of the militia are called up in every draft. That we've never called up every last member of the entire militia population is unremarkable, except perhaps to the authors of the ADL article.

The article persistently fails to distinguish THE militia from A militia, and regularly conflates the two for the convenience of its own conclusions.

Moreover, the article denigrates the term "unorganised militia" as an "invention". However it reasonably flows from the language of federal statute that the existence of an organised milita that encompasses a population less the THE militia will necessarily leave the unorganised militia. There is no other reasonable conclusion.

Originally Posted by publius42
Which are these "many" states where the citizens were not expected to do that?

Here is a better explanation: http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq3.asp read paragraph 3.32.

The link doesn't actually answer the question publius poses. Rather the link pertains to changes in militia practice subsequent to adoption of the BOR as an accommodation to poverty.

The ADL does some fine work. This isn't any of it.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

You do know that they are an anti-gun organization, yes?

Sure I do. So what? The issue we are discussing is not the private ownership of guns but the militia.

Tennessee, why should I hold the ADL as an expert on Militias?

Because if you read what they wrote rather than dismissing them out of hand you will see the authors went to pretty good effort to list their sources and do not address (and make a clear note of it) the issue of the individual RTKBA. Maybe they are opposed to gun ownership but that does not make their inquiry into the historical research about the militia any more biased than say...yours.

Using the ADL as an authority on 2A matters, is similar to using the ACLU for the same, and only slightly less smelly than using the Brady Campaign as your "expert."

Would using John Ross's Unintended Consequences be less biased?:barf:

Al, please, you are above broad brushing and I challenge you to debate their facts as presented not their reptutation within the gun world.

Intelligent debate looks for truth whereever it is found, ideologues only look where it suits their arguments.