WeedWacker
New member
Even if you didn't understand the 2nd Amendment (which it appears you don't), a read of the decisions in Heller and (especially) McDonald makes it crystal clear that the RKBA protected by the 2nd Amendment is in no way predicated on service in a militia, or on anything else. It also imposes no requirement to be a citizen.
No, I never said "participate in a militia" I said the definition of a militia being that of able bodied men between 17 and 45 "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."
Quotes from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
Hence my questioning whether this man falls under the qualifications to be the unorganized militia (standard civilian) since he, as far as I know, has made no "declaration of intention to become" a citizen. He is a resident alien and I think the law as it stands would exclude such a person. Then again we give Miranda rights to known terrorists and enemy combatants now.
But in my own honest opinion I don't see why the guy shouldn't be allowed the means to defend himself. I'm just saying the law seems slightly exclusionary in this regard as it stands.
ETA: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall no be infringed"
From the Heller interpretation this means that firearms will not be denied to the people of the United States. CCW is another matter. I'm all for "constitutional carry" but it's not going to happen any time soon. Without the legislation at this point the man may be excluded from our right to bear arms in a concealed fashion.
Last edited: