A well regulated militia today?

A

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:
(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.
Click to expand...

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.:o
 
Last edited:
"Militia" in today's terms means exactly what it meant back then; Standing armies are the enemy of freedom. A general populace armed with the same equipment of the infantry and well-practiced in it's use can defeat any attempt to subdue them, whether from a hostile invader or a hostile domestic government.

The 'militia' is us. 'Well-regulated' means we know how to use our guns.
If you doubt either assertion, review what the founders had to say about it.
 
If being in a miltia of some sorts is found to be the final word on gun ownership then there are going to be militias popping up everywhere. A single neighborhood watch program could be considered a militia considering there have been no minimums established for what constitutes being organized or regulated. The last thing the fed wants is a resurgence in militia activity after they worked so hard to defame them during the Clinton years and Bush hasn't exactly gone on t.v. and said "Let's make America better by bringing back the militias."

The truth is that more folks would be in a militia if it weren't for the fact that there is a genuine fear of the ATF setting them up. Militias are supposed to be able to have the same weapons available to the regular military. Start a neighborhood militia and get hold some FA guns and/or explosives and see how fast the feds kill everyone who doesn't surrender.

This case going to the SCOTUS is a drop in the bucket the way I see it. Until a real trial on wether or not the 2A means the general public is "the people" happens, and maybe a trial over the meaning of militia occurs, this will be a case intentionally limited to D.C. They will rule that the current issue doesn't apply nationally since only residents of D.C. are the initiators of legal questions. There will have to be a national class action suit against all state laws for a real legal hearing. This is unlikely any time soon.
 
The 'militia' is us. 'Well-regulated' means we know how to use our guns.
If you doubt either assertion, review what the founders had to say about it.
Click to expand...

That's exactly it... I do doubt your second assertion. I know that we are the militia. But I don't think that the public in general is a well-regulated militia.

I think a well regulated militia means more than we can put our rifle in a bench rest under the guidance of a range officer and make neat little patterns in a piece of paper 100 yards away.

Now, I haven't read any selections of the Federalist Papers or the Anti-Federalist Papers since high school. I don't remember any of it. I'll go hunt down a copy this weekend... it seems to be something I need to know more about.

But I do ask you for citations indicating that the well-regulated militia component of the 2A is an overdressed way of saying that you can shoot your rifle with reasonable skill.

I would ideally have the 2A interpreted as:
"A competent citizen militia is the keystone to preventing federal or state tyranny, and is the immediate defensive bullwark of any community. For this reason, we hereby affirm the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and to train with them to maintain proficiency."

But I ain't a justice on the SCOTUS.

This interpretation affirms the right of unorganized, unregulated members of the militia to both own arms, and to train with them to become well-regulated as they see fit.

I just worry about an interpretation that could come forth indicating that only the portion of the unorganized militia that could be considered "well regulated" is eligible to KBA per the 2A, and I would like to consider what modern elements could be considered well regulated militias.

NRA High Power competitors?
Appleseed participants?
Three-gun players?
Cowboy game players?
IDPA/IPSC/GSSF?
NRA/GOA/JPFO/SAF/CCRKBA Members?
CCW Holders?
Minutemen?
Guardian Angels?
Posse/Police Volunteers?
Anyone with a membership to a shooting range?
 
"a well regulated militia" meant, in those days, the people (able bodied males, blah blah), armed and well-trained in military evolutions (not just being able to shoot straight), always with some governmental approval/supervision - traditionally the colony/commonwealth/state.

Membership was compulsory, as was providing your own arms (only the poorest were exempt from this). Musters and military training took place; light infantry and artillery units were formed...To see EXACTLY what "well regulated Militia" meant to the framers after the Constitution was ratified, read the Militia Act of 1792 - and how it was to be organized (unit/command structure), trained/disciplined (Von Stuben's Blue Book), and armed (the people themselves).

The reason the power to provide for the arming, organizing and disciplining the Militia of the several States was given to Congress was the hope of coming up with a more uniform and a more effective entity, and so there would be less need for a Standing Army. The 2nd was meant to further guard the Militias, AND THE PEOPLE, from this grant of power - from a tryannical govt that might otherwise disarm and so destroy the Militia to build a standing army on its ruin.

Unfortunately, though we are still "defined" by law as "the unorganized militia", we are clearly not "well regulated", and we have been obsoleted, as there is no longer a mandated role we serve (no provision for calling us out in federal law). The Minuteman Group are NOT the Militia - they have no govt authorization. State Defense Forces are the closest we have left (again though, with no federal role). THE well regulated militia of the Constitution, the one necessary to freedom, has been replaced via usurption - the Militia of the several States is no more, and the federal govt has placed a federally armed and federally funded branch of the Army(& AF) on its ruin. [seems totally disarming the people will be next, as tyrannical govts always do]
 
Last edited:
azredhawk,
I think your question comes back to the dependant clause argument. Not saying the predicate/dependant argument isn't important politically, but the order granting cert kinda made it a moot point.


For your specific question, here's a pretty good overview with citations:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
Click to expand...
Hamilton, Federalist papers #29
 
So "well-regulated" in the parlance of the day meant "capable of kickin' butt". And you can't hardly become or stay sharp without guns to practice on, so "they" refers to the people, not just the ones who are good at it.

So loosely translating
Armed civillians who know their stuff are essential to a free society, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Or something like that :D
 
The original intent was that ordinary citizens could be pressed into service anywhere trouble started, under the command of a civil authority, to fight invasion, riots or insurrections. Given, in those times, invasion lacked air support and mechanization, the assemblage of 500 men fighting guerilla tactics could seriously slow down a traditional army trying to march inland.

I would translate "well regulated" into "disciplined" or "structured" in modern terminology. Given the task of trying to train "civilians" into soliders on a voluntary basis would be a strain, the best you can hope for is some form of discipline to work as part of a structured team in times of crisis.

In the militia, there is the "select" militia (organized, trained and paid) and the regular militia (unorganized) composed of the citizen-cum-soldier when needed. Your State's National Guard is really the "select" militia, reporting to the state's civil authority (let's not get into federal call-ups etc.).

Most states have little or no provisions in their statutes (and more importantly their budgets) for training the regular militia. Some actually have a title for something like "commandant of the militia" but quite often there is no funding or even an office for the job. Thus, most states lack any militia that is under even nominal civil-authority.

Let's also not forget that "militia" has been mis-used over the last 2 centuries too. From neo-nazi types to wealthy industrial barons calling a private army a "militia", the term can be used (and often is by politicians) in a derogatory manner. Many states & counties have laws prohibiting "para-military" groups or their participation in military-like activities.

Civil authorities already have their budgets stretched and adding any kind of significant support to a militia is unlikely. Many would think it was merely a way for shooters to get free ammo and range time.

Try putting the shoe on the other foot. Pretend you're a member of a county board or a state legislature and someone is trying to sell you on the idea to provide funding and training for a "militia". You'll have to find funding somewhere, probably by cutting other programs, which means explaining it to taxpayers and reporters.

Ask some critical questions;
-How many times in the last 50 years have we needed a milita?
-Who would be in charge of it and how much will he be paid?
-What does the state/county get out of it in "normal times"?
-Who is responsible for oversight of public funds?
-Is there legal liability exposure to the state/county if we do this? How much?
-How much administrative costs? (secretaries, document writers, etc.)

And so on.
 
I like Florida. First, they give you their definition of militia, which is correct.

250.02 Militia.--

(1) The militia consists of all able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens.

(2) The organized militia is composed of the National Guard and any other organized military forces that are authorized by law.

(3) The unorganized militia is composed of all persons who are subject to military duty but who are not members of units of the organized militia.

(4) Only persons exempt from military duty by the terms of federal law are exempt from military duty in this state.
Click to expand...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=militia&URL=CH0250/Sec02.HTM

Then they ban the formation and drilling (aka practicing) or parading in public with firearms of any unorganized militia without prior approval from the state.

870.06 Unauthorized military organizations.--No body of persons, other than the regularly organized land and naval militia of this state, the troops of the United States, and the students of regularly chartered educational institutions where military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction, shall associate themselves together as a military organization for drill or parade in public with firearms, in this state, without special license from the Governor for each occasion, and application for such license must be approved by the mayor and aldermen of the cities and towns where such organizations may propose to parade. Each person unlawfully engaging in the formation of such military organization, or participating in such drill or parade, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Click to expand...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=militia&URL=CH0870/Sec06.HTM

Guess it is ok to drill and parade on private land.
 
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..."
Click to expand...

The whole question may soon become far less relevant.

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
Click to expand...

The answer could be: no, because the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia are non-existent. That answer would be consistent with the rulings of every Circuit except the 5th and the DC Circuit. If they say that, they'll say it quickly and by 9 to 0.

I don't think that is what is going on here, because I think it would have happened a week sooner if that were the case. Anything else they may say will have to do with the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia.
 
OK, here goes ...
"Well regulated" essentially means properly functioning … implying both the need for training and equipment. Militia is a force separate from the standing military forces as implied in Article 2 Section 2 where the "Militia of the several States" is listed separately from the army and navy. Also the collective fear the founding fathers had for standing armies is well documented (as is their belief in a need for a force to keep them in check). A standing army is sufficient for the security (or protection) of a State (country) but they knew that a professional army could also be used to subjugate the populace. The easiest way to insure the freedom of the people is to empower them to resist the army. The idea of the self-determination and freedom from oppression of man being a right granted by God was deeply held by them. Having weapons and knowing how to use them was both a symbol and insurance of a man’s freedom.

Thus: Since a properly functioning military body comprised of ordinary citizens is necessary to protect our country and maintain freedom in it, the right of the people to possess and carry weapons shall not be limited.

If you are of age, able bodied, and NOT in the U.S. military you are part of the militia. The militia and "standing army" are mutually exclusive. If you are in the National Guard, then it is questionable whether or not you are part of the militia. There is a strong argument that the Nat. Guard is part of the standing army … especially since 1986. Some states also have military bodies that are unquestionably militias.
Mississippi is one of those states. Until 1941 there was little organization and it pretty much consisted of groups of men in each county under direction of their sheriff and each congressional district formed a division under a brigadier general … In 1941 the Mississippi Home Guard (now called the MS State Guard) was formed out of the body of the militia to do the jobs previously done by the MS National Guard (since all MS Nat. Guard units were mobilized). The formation of the MSG did not replace the militia … it merely organized a part of it. In 1986, when the United States Army adopted the "Total Force Concept" in which the National Guard of all states are considered a part of the active duty forces, the MSG was re-activated and reorganized as a volunteer cadre force. Since the militia mania a few years ago they never call themselves a militia and do not (officially) train with arms. They can only be called up by the governor of the state and cannot be nationalized except by his order. Oddly enough, if they are placed under national control with the intent of sending them out of the State the units are essentially disbanded and re-formed since any members who disagree with the nationalization are free to leave at that point and are considered to be part of the unorganized militia (leaving after agreeing to national control is desertion). As far as I know, the last time any true militia unit was turned over to national control was to the C.S.A.
MSG is an entirely volunteer force and it’s members receive no pay for their time in training or on duty unless they are acting under orders after being called up by the governor (then they receive the same scale as an active National Guardsman). All equipment and uniforms are purchased by the members. They can use facilities at the various military bases in the state and have essentially the same access to the bx, range, etc. that a national guardsman has. When an emergency occurs, they are expected to contact their unit. If they are unable to do this, they report to their county sheriff.
The last time the MSG was called up by the governor was during hurricane Katrina. They performed exceptionally well in coordinating communication between military, law enforcement and the public. They also served by performing duties such as guarding areas, directing traffic and delivering supplies.
The unorganized militia also served in the form of "regular guys" showing up, speaking to LE, finding out what needed to be done, and doing it.

Here is the relevant law :
MS Code of 1972
SEC. 33-5-1. Composition of the Militia.
The militia of the State of Mississippi shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the state between the ages of seventeen (17) and sixty-two (62) years, who are not exempt by law of this state or of the United States, together with all other able-bodied persons who shall voluntarily enlist or accept commission, appointment or assignment to duty therein, subject to such classifications as may be hereinafter prescribed. The militia shall be divided into three (3) classes: The national guard, the Mississippi State Guard, and the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia shall consist of all persons liable to service in the militia, but not members of the national guard or the Mississippi State Guard.
SEC. 33-5-9. Unorganized militia; when subject to duty.
The unorganized militia, or any part thereof, shall not be subject to any active military duty, except when called into the service of the United States or when called into the service of this state by the governor in case of war, rebellion, insurrections, invasion, tumult, riot, breach of the peace, public calamity or catastrophe or other state or national emergency or imminent danger thereof. When the militia of this state, or any part thereof, is called forth under the constitution and laws of the United States, the governor
shall first order out for service the national guard, and then the Mississippi State Guard, or such parts thereof as may be necessary, and if the number available be insufficient, he shall then order out such part of the unorganized militia as he may deem that the necessity requires.
 
Now this is one interesting discussion! I have long thought about the wording of the 2nd Amendment, and have always rejected the thought that it was a collective right, and not an individual one. The Anti's are always harping on the "Well regulated militia" part. Whoever worded this appeal to the SC takes the whole militia thing completely out of the discussion, as shown by the quote below (borrowed from publius42s post).


“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
Click to expand...

It appears to me that this case will indeed address the validity of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". An individual right with no dependence on a militia of any type. If this is the case, I cannot see the SCOTUS handing down a decision to disarm "We the People". Can you imagine the chaos if what the police / national guard did in New Orleans after Katrina started to happen country wide? There is no way the SCOTUS would set up that scenario.

Although the appeal seems to apply only to the residents of DC. It is a very important ruling in that if the ruling does find that D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 are in violation of the 2nd Amendment, then the table is set favorably for more law suits against restrictive citiy and states laws elswhere.

If the decision goes the other way, anti's like M. Bloomberg are going to have a field day, and we can expect a landslide of restrictive laws to come down in many cities and States. I am hoping, and cautiously optomistic, that the decision will be in favor of "The People"

Again, looking at the wording of the appeal, it only applies to "handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes". It is a small (albeit important) part of gun ownership. Suppose the SC decides that it's OK for folks to have guns inside their homes, and DC decides to make it (or keep it) illegal to take them outside the home for range use or practice. They could follow Californias lead and start trying to ban ammo instead of guns.

The point is, that the wording of the appeal seems to be very specific, and no matter what the decision is, it most likely will not have a huge affect on the rest of the States or the country in general. By the way, Isn't this Forum well regulated? I think we all can claim that since it is, and we are members, that we are well regulated as well ;)

DS
 
Okay, so out of my original list in post #4, we can weed out all the non-governmental entities I originally posted. So long to all the shoot clubs and competitions for being grounds as a regulating force of the unorganized militia.

I was hoping that the officially unorganized militia could be considered well regulated by honing skills and shooting discipline by participation in such organizations.

But, that leaves:
CCW holders (state sanctioned and regulated firearms use by unorganized militia)
County and city level police volunteers (non-state sanctioned, but overseen by the local executive authority of a mayor or sherriff)
State Guard Units (official declaration by State Law that state citizens are integral components of state defense forces and expected to KBA)

Since getting a CCW requires that you own a handgun (or have one you can borrow from another gun owner) in order to take the test (at least in AZ), it seems to me that:
1. State CCW holders are regulated components of the unorganized militia;
2. Possession of a firearm by a person applying to obtain a CCW permit is mandatory;
then:
The intent of Arizona state law is that unregulated components of the unorganized militia are approved for handgun ownership.

The same argument could be made for each of the other two categories still actively approved or endorsed by the states.

My point in bringing this up, is to begin folks thinking about how to protect ourselves in "red states" from a "blue state style" SCOTUS ruling on this issue. If sufficient state law exists to protect the unorganized, unregulated militia's gun ownership then we have nothing to fear from a bad Federal court ruling.

I would think that the 30-something states that have concealed weapons permit systems would by default be protected from an anti-handgun ownership ruling. Just as any state with a state guard law mentioning long arms provisioning would be protected from anti-long gun ownership rulings.
 
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.
--- George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426
The existence of the unorganized militia is not dependent on whether or not it is "well regulated" nor does the right disappear if the militia does not train. Part of being "well regulated" is simply being equipped. The founders were not under the illusion of being able to field a militia as disciplined and equipped as a regular army.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
--- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Being "well regulated" was what they hoped for concerning the militia. The individual right to keep and bear arms makes that goal possible. It is up to the individual (and in some cases the States) to do his patriotic duty by being ready to protect the Constitution.

On for the question of "state regulated militias", DC not being a state and thus not having a militia … The argument is absurd. If a State has no provision in law or its constitution for a militia it simply means that that State has no militia BUT it’s citizens are still part of the federal militia. Besides, militia units have been called up and used which were comprised of residents of Wash. D.C. (During the civil war alone, between 30 and 40 units of infantry and cavalry were organized)

SCOTUS … who knows what they will do ? If they operate on the living document concept of the Constitution, they can pretty much rule any way they please. It doesn’t mean that they are right and regardless of a ruling by them or any edict of any government, I’ll not surrender so much as a spent 22 hull.
If they’ll take the correct approach to interpreting the 2nd, we will win.

As for looking for State protection of your rights from an overreaching federal govt., I doubt that any State would steadfastly defend you in the face of losing their federal funding.

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
--- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
 
I guess what I'm looking at is a situation where:

The provisioning and training regimen of the militia is under the direct control of the Federal Congress;

The Federal Congress makes no attempt to provision or train the militia, whereas they have a clear history (The CMP, prior to its private incorporation, as an excellent example) of actively provisioning and encouraging training (i.e. via NRA High Power competitions);

Ergo, since Congress is actively NOT provisioning the militia, there is no cause for the militia to be armed. (I ain't one of the loonies, just trying to think around corners like they do).

And... how do you resolve a state / federal conflict where as state law affirms more rights of a citizen than a federal law, and a state places a burden of potential civil service as a result of that right?

I picked up a copy of the Federalist Papers with the accompanying Anti-Federalist Papers to go with it, but I've only scratched the surface so far. Any help would be great in pointing to further resources regarding this concept. Also, what other primary historical texts might SCOTUS use to reference judgement on a Constitutional ruling?

ETA: Publius42 hit the nail right on the head with his excerpted quote from the DC appeal. This appeal is attempting to divide "lay people" from the militia, which under USC 10,311 cannot be done. There are fantastic lawyers working on an effective defense against this divisive strategy, but I am wondering what else can be done in case they fail.

Would it be helpful to have each state re-examine the roll of the militia and appoint a commander of the militia? Some wording that endorses the ownership of military pattern long guns and NFA taxed items? Can law be re-worded a little bit to incorporate CCW permit holders as members of the state organized militia? Add a notice of potential required service to the application paperwork for the permit?

And what about the CMP? I know it's technically a private entity now, but it is still in bed with the armed forces and Congress, isn't it? It's original charter called for surplus army weaponry to be sold to the unorganized militia to repel invasion, and for americans to practice rifleman skills. For that matter, wasn't the NRA founded back by commissioned officers in the Civil War over a disgust at the rifleman skills of soldiers, and a desire to improve those skills?
 
Actually, this exact situation was addressed years ago by a Michigan Supreme Court Justice - Thomas Cooley.

The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
Click to expand...

[emphasis added]
--- Thomas M. Cooley (1824-1898),
--- Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and author of the leading nineteenth-century works on constitutional law.

... who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers.
Click to expand...
--- George Mason Elliot, Debates at 425-426:
 
I am wondering what else can be done in case they fail.
Click to expand...

I think the collectivist/militia interpretation is going down. The question the Court posed is a good one, the more I think about it. It aims to settle (1) whether individuals who are not affiliated with a militia have any 2A rights at all, but it also aims to settle (2) whether those rights are violated by a ban on handguns and functional long guns in the home.

Why ask the second question if the answer to the first is no?

I don't think we have to plan on a bunch of new militia structures to get around a potential loss on the individual/collective rights argument. The question posed by the Court reflects the opinions of at least 4 Justices, since it takes that many to grant cert. It is possible that the other 5 believe in the collectivist argument and will win, but I don't think it is likely.
 
OK I'm too lazy to read a 109 page pdf file...can you give a summary of the top 5 points contained therein?

One not-so-subtle change that I've noticed in this debate, is the morphing of the term "well regulated militia" to "state regulated militia".

Presumably to reinforce the improper interpretation of the phrase "well regulated", in the historical sense, and tie it to the national guard. Most casual observers probably won't notice.
 
Hammer, in a word, no. I will not summarize this. In fact, this document is a summary, and an opinion. I doubt if it could have been any shorter due to the nature of the subject.

You can be lazy if you like. This document contains much of the information that the SCOTUS will review in D.C. vs Heller. Without a thorough understanding, any discourse is a walk in the wilderness.

Since you specifically asked about the term 'militia', if you can make it through the first 10 to 15 pages, you will find a discussion of that. Maybe by then your curiosity will be piqued enough to continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top