azredhawk44
Moderator
With the Heller v. DC case on the horizon, I have been thinking about the only real words that have any power of constraining an American's right to keep and bear arms: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
My gut instinct says, "I got what I got, and you can't have it!" But I want to articulate that a bit better than "Molon Labe!" and other such phrases. I also want to intelligently address the concept of militia in today's context.
So, the second amendment appears to apply to both "the people" and "the militia." It could possibly be interpreted to say that the people will regulate the militia by keeping and bearing arms. The people will keep the militia in check.
I don't think it says that... that's silly.
It could be possibly interpreted to say that the people and the militia are synonymous. Certainly, USC 10,311 agrees with that reading:
So, all of us between 17 and 45 years of age who are male are members of the militia. Mostly, the unorganized militia.
All you gals, and everyone over 45, are protected by anti-discrimination laws and equal opportunity laws and equal protection laws. If it applies to me as a law-abiding 29 year old male, then it applies to any one else.
Unorganized doesn't sound very well regulated though. We've got to face that word - regulated.
Synonyms for regulated include ordered, scrupulous, structured, disciplined and efficient (Roget's New Millenium Thesaurus).
While we may be individually regulated while shooting at the firing line at the local city range (cease fire, open and empty all actions, step behind the yellow line), that doesn't necessarily mean that WE are well regulated as a militia.
So, who among us are well regulated as militia members? Certainly law enforcement and emergency personnel.
Also, CCW holders.
I think that there is a real argument for folks with concealed weapons permits to be considered the modern militia. They provide their own arms, seek out and obtain their own mandated and auxiliary training, and are coached on appropriate means to respond to different types of threats to themselves and their surroundings.
Here in Arizona, any law-abiding resident of Maricopa county can join Sherriff Joe's Posse. Another form of militia that is well organized. Many cities and counties have similar programs.
Arizona has the Arizona State Guard. We passed a law last year re-affirming its need, although we have not issued a call to arms for the State Guard ever, if I recall. Someone educate me otherwise please. But we have a constitutional and ARS-delegated duty to be able to bear arms in defense of Arizona. The regulated component is currently missing, but the state accounts for that in the officer structure of the state guard and the means by which the guard is assembled when called. At least, I think so.
While they decry any resemblance, I would make a strong argument that the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps is another Militia, and it is very well organized. While they do not actively seek out hostile engagements, there are strict guidelines as to how communications and rank are structured out in the field, how weapons are to be transported, what weaponry is permitted, and how potentially hostile situations are to be handled. The goal of the organization is a cohesive observational response capable of reporting illegal entries into the US to both the Border Patrol and to the United States public by means of the press. They accomplish both jobs admirably. There's another Militia.
Folks, the militia is alive and strong. Don't let anyone tell you it's dead, or only up in "Idaho and Michigan." Your freedom to associate, or not associate, with a perceived militia is also at stake. If the SCOTUS attacks that first phrase of the 2nd Amendment, say good bye to any grass roots gun-related, law-enforcement supportive activism of any type. Embrace that first phrase... it re-enforces our right to organize peaceably for whatever threats we feel we need to face as the American public.
At least, that's my take.
My gut instinct says, "I got what I got, and you can't have it!" But I want to articulate that a bit better than "Molon Labe!" and other such phrases. I also want to intelligently address the concept of militia in today's context.
So, the second amendment appears to apply to both "the people" and "the militia." It could possibly be interpreted to say that the people will regulate the militia by keeping and bearing arms. The people will keep the militia in check.
I don't think it says that... that's silly.
It could be possibly interpreted to say that the people and the militia are synonymous. Certainly, USC 10,311 agrees with that reading:
(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.
So, all of us between 17 and 45 years of age who are male are members of the militia. Mostly, the unorganized militia.
All you gals, and everyone over 45, are protected by anti-discrimination laws and equal opportunity laws and equal protection laws. If it applies to me as a law-abiding 29 year old male, then it applies to any one else.
Unorganized doesn't sound very well regulated though. We've got to face that word - regulated.
Synonyms for regulated include ordered, scrupulous, structured, disciplined and efficient (Roget's New Millenium Thesaurus).
While we may be individually regulated while shooting at the firing line at the local city range (cease fire, open and empty all actions, step behind the yellow line), that doesn't necessarily mean that WE are well regulated as a militia.
So, who among us are well regulated as militia members? Certainly law enforcement and emergency personnel.
Also, CCW holders.
I think that there is a real argument for folks with concealed weapons permits to be considered the modern militia. They provide their own arms, seek out and obtain their own mandated and auxiliary training, and are coached on appropriate means to respond to different types of threats to themselves and their surroundings.
Here in Arizona, any law-abiding resident of Maricopa county can join Sherriff Joe's Posse. Another form of militia that is well organized. Many cities and counties have similar programs.
Arizona has the Arizona State Guard. We passed a law last year re-affirming its need, although we have not issued a call to arms for the State Guard ever, if I recall. Someone educate me otherwise please. But we have a constitutional and ARS-delegated duty to be able to bear arms in defense of Arizona. The regulated component is currently missing, but the state accounts for that in the officer structure of the state guard and the means by which the guard is assembled when called. At least, I think so.
While they decry any resemblance, I would make a strong argument that the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps is another Militia, and it is very well organized. While they do not actively seek out hostile engagements, there are strict guidelines as to how communications and rank are structured out in the field, how weapons are to be transported, what weaponry is permitted, and how potentially hostile situations are to be handled. The goal of the organization is a cohesive observational response capable of reporting illegal entries into the US to both the Border Patrol and to the United States public by means of the press. They accomplish both jobs admirably. There's another Militia.
Folks, the militia is alive and strong. Don't let anyone tell you it's dead, or only up in "Idaho and Michigan." Your freedom to associate, or not associate, with a perceived militia is also at stake. If the SCOTUS attacks that first phrase of the 2nd Amendment, say good bye to any grass roots gun-related, law-enforcement supportive activism of any type. Embrace that first phrase... it re-enforces our right to organize peaceably for whatever threats we feel we need to face as the American public.
At least, that's my take.
Last edited: