That "militia thing"

T

tomrkba

New member
What would happen if 100 or more men showed up at the local town square, formed up, said the pledge of allegiance, saluted the flag, and someone did an inspection? Every man would have a full kit, rifle, sidearm and ammunition. There would be no standard uniform or "unit". They'd then disperse and go home. No running around the woods, no diatribes against tyranny, the UN, or anything else. It would not be associated with any sort of protest. It would be a simple activity in an open carry state.

I have been thinking about the intent behind the Second Amendment (and state right to keep and bear arms) with all the swirl around gun control. I have noticed that nobody is bringing up the "militia" part of the right. I believe the Founders intended it to be a responsibility of every man to participate in at some level. Yet, today, nobody does it in any formal manner. It seems to me that very few regular shooters are prepared in any sort of way beyond what would be required for the next action shooting match.

I placed this in the "Law and Civil Rights" forum because this is a fundamental portion of the right to keep and bear arms. It seems to me that we should begin to engage in this activity independent of politics or protests.

This is just a thought, nothing more. I'm curious if others have been thinking about this too.
 
Nobody is bringing up the "militia" aspect because SCOTUS just (in the last 5 years) clarified that the RKBA is unconnected to service in any militia.
 
Nobody is bringing up the "militia" aspect because SCOTUS just (in the last 5 years) clarified that the RKBA is unconnected to service in any militia.
Click to expand...

The right to assemble as a militia still exists. It may be divorced from the right to keep and bear arms, but the Founders intended for us to engage in it.
 
I don't think the SCOTUS said that militia service or membership is "unconnected" to or "divorced from" the RKBA. I think what they said is that the RKBA is not dependent on being a member of the militia. The connection is there and it seems to me that both Scalia and Alito recognized it, but they were clear in saying that the core right to keep and bear arms does not require that one be a member of the militia.

To say otherwise would raise a lot of issues nobody wants raised. For example, the Militia Act defines the militia as able-bodied males 18 to (I believe) 45 years of age, plus female members of the National Guard and Naval Auxiliary (or whatever the naval militia is called in the act). So ... I'm a Vietnam veteran and now very much a senior citizen. I'm several decades past the upper limit for the militia. Does that mean I have no RKBA? What about (oh,oh!) wimmin? If the RKBA were to be strictly based on membership in the militia, NO women other than National Guard and Naval Whatever would have any RKBA.

I don't think even the ardent gun grabbers want to tell women they have less rights than a class of men aged 18 to 45.
 
Last edited:
I can’t speak of what would happen in your county, but can mine. If what you describe happened with our previous Sheriff, I guaranty there would be 100 people arrested. With our current Sheriff, well, he’d probably join you.

Can you tell I like our current Sheriff? :)
 
The right to assemble as a militia still exists
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. There is no right to form a militia for The People. Some states have banned a private/non-state militia, and do not organize or regulate a state militia outside of the National Guard, leaving you no militia option in that state.
 
No, it doesn't. There is no right to form a militia for The People. Some states have banned a private/non-state militia, and do not organize or regulate a state militia outside of the National Guard, leaving you no militia option in that state.
Click to expand...

And taking it even further, some states ban types of "paramilitary training" outright. The statutes are fuzzy, and were basically just a knee-jerk reaction to the swelling number of survivalist/extremist groups in the 70s.
 
Whoa... I didn't know states had definitive prohibitions on groups like that. Seems it would violate the right of free association. Not arguing any point mind you, just surprised.

I've thought several times during this recent threat that Obama was not JUST the best gun salesman but that he was probably the best thing to happen for recruitment into both fringe groups and into some stand-up militia's.

I know of at least one of the latter, at least from tone of their community outreach. Have heard them talk on the radio in Sandpoint a couple times and they just seem like prudent folk wanting to be on guard on behalf of their nation.
 
Before I moved to the free State of Tennessee, I came from Rhode Island. RI law states that it is absolutely forbidden to form any type of militia and, it is also forbidden to take part in any type of "para military" training.
 
SgtDog0311 said:
Whoa... I didn't know states had definitive prohibitions on groups like that. Seems it would violate the right of free association.
Click to expand...
As ScottRiqui stated, the statutes are fuzzy, and AFAIK none of these laws have been seriously challenged since the SCOTUS started taking incorporation more seriously under the Warren and Burger courts.
SgtDog0311 said:
I've thought several times... that Obama was not JUST the best gun salesman but that he was probably the best thing to happen for recruitment into... some stand-up militia's... they just seem like prudent folk wanting to be on guard on behalf of their nation.
Click to expand...
As I've stated in several similar threads, an unsanctioned private group is not a true militia in the constitutional sense. I prefer to call such groups paramilitaries.

To build upon what Aquila and JimDandy have already written, the founders clearly intended for "The Militia" to be sanctioned by state and local governments* and controlled by the federal government at certain times*, which is why the Constitution gives control of the state militias to Congress and command of the militias to the President.

More of my thoughts here:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=510312

*[EDIT] Portions in italics were added to clarify what I intended to say. Pardon the misunderstanding- it was a botched attempt at brevity. :)
 
Last edited:
To build upon what Aquila and JimDandy have already written, the founders clearly intended for "The Militia" to be sanctioned and controlled by the government, which is why the Constitution gives control of the state militias to Congress and command of the militias to the President.
Click to expand...

This sentiment appears to conflate "a militia" with "the Militia". "The Militia" is a defined population, not an organisation like the NG.

Congress is granted authority to call up "The Militia", but that doesn't confer upon it other additional authority to control that population.



In any event, noting congressional authority with respect to a defined population shouldn't suggest that the right described in the 2d Am. is limited to or dependent on membership in a statutorily defined population. It wouldn't make sense to have a fundamental right so vulnerable to routine legislation.
 
tomrkba said:
...It seems to me that we should begin to engage in this activity independent of politics or protests...
Click to expand...
Why? What purpose supportive of the RKBA would it serve? Why would you think it would serve that purpose? Any evidence or data to support your beliefs?

It strikes me that many people who support gun control and politicians who vote for gun control legislation do so because they are frightened of people who own guns. I don't see how a sort of demonstration as suggested by the OP could ameliorate those fears, and would more likely to increase them.

In any case, what positive would likely come of this sort of exercise?
 
The purpose is to exercise a right not used in a long time. The people have not organized themselves in a long time. The idea is to show up, be counted, recite the pledge, show your rifle, and leave. Why does it have to be so difficult?
 
tomrkba said:
...Why does it have to be so difficult?
Click to expand...
Because it sounds like a monumental waste of time that is unlikely to benefit our struggle to promote the RKBA and may well generate some negative public reaction that could hurt us.
 
Frank,

Stop, review what politicians are saying and doing, and think.

Politicians in Colorado have openly admitted to ignoring all pro-rkba correspondence and testimony in the passage of the recent gun control laws in that state. If that behavior exists in other states and at the national level, and that seems to the case, all the letter writing in the world does not matter. They feel confident that they can pass what they want. But, that was not the point of my idea. It was really to see if people are willing to think about standing up and being counted. All indications are that they are not.
 
Agreed. The people setting up would look strange. I'd proffer in most towns of decent size the police would be all over them. On the positive it might be entertaining to watch the hijinks. I am not saying anyone here is a wackjob or anything of that nature mind you. I'm just saying as a bystander thats what it would look like. OR it might look like homegrown terrorists forming up (pick your poison on that one-KKK, neonazis, jihadis etc.).

Now if those guys all came dressed up like the Continental Army, that would be kind of cool. :cool: But then it would be a reenactment and not a protest or whatever this is supposed to be.
 
Last edited:
tomrkba said:
The purpose is to exercise a right not used in a long time. The people have not organized themselves in a long time. The idea is to show up, be counted, recite the pledge, show your rifle, and leave. Why does it have to be so difficult?
Click to expand...

Emphasis added.

I think there are some ambiguities in the idea you express here.

"The people" express and organize themselves in many different ways. They routinely do this every two years in elections, and in the 1930s they organized themselves to elect a Congress that gave us the NFA. So, let us recognize that "the people" organizing is not an activity uniformly consistent with an expansion of liberty.

Sentiments that rest on the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment seem to resonate best with people who are small "d" democrats, i.e. not necessarily members of the American democrat party, but those who place of authority in popular expression. However, as the patchwork of our state gun regulations indicate, popular sentiment is not a frequent companion of civil liberties. On the contrary, the exercise of these liberties appears to be better served by removing their protection from popular sentiment and leaving it with the judiciary.

My general sense is that your suggestion for a rifle bearing protest is most likely to occur, be tolerated well and supported in parts of the country where most voters would already comfortable with it.

Nationally, we have a vice president who suggests all we really need is a double-barreled shotgun (you know, because you do not have to aim those) and a Congress who have most recently focused on whether they should ban items in common use, a genre of legislation unlikely to pass the standard suggested in Heller. I like the chances of prevailing in that controversy.

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
 
carguychris said:
To build upon what Aquila and JimDandy have already written, the founders clearly intended for "The Militia" to be sanctioned and controlled by the government, which is why the Constitution gives control of the state militias to Congress and command of the militias to the President.
Click to expand...
Whoa, Mate.

I referred to the Militia Act, which is in Federal law. It defines who is in the "unorganized militia," but it does not say that the unorganized militia is under government control unless called up by the Federal government. I don't believe that the Founders saw local militias as being under government control at all ... other than ensuring that each town or county HAD its local militia. The colonial militias were typically not under government control unless/until called up by the governor for duty.

As to someone's comment above that many states prohibit "private" militias or paramilitary training, I'm not so sure about that. I haven't researched the laws of all the states on this, but I have researched several. And, while those I have looked into do have provisions regarding paramilitary training, they do not have blanket prohibitions. They prohibit paramilitary training for the purpose of overthrowing the government.

In states such as those, a group conducting paramilitary training for the purpose of taking over the state and seceding from the United States might be prohibited. A group of U.S. military war veterans training as a "militia" so as to be better prepared against the possibility of a terrorist assault would not be prohibited.

Of course, the question of how to explain the difference to the nice men in the Bradley fighting vehicles could be vexing ...
 
In states such as those, a group conducting paramilitary training for the purpose of taking over the state and seceding from the United States might be prohibited. A group of U.S. military war veterans training as a "militia" so as to be better prepared against the possibility of a terrorist assault would not be prohibited.

Of course, the question of how to explain the difference to the nice men in the Bradley fighting vehicles could be vexing ...
Click to expand...

Yep - that's what I meant about the statutes being vague. To outside observers, training to repel a superior invading force looks an awful lot like training to overthrow the government, and telling the difference gets into whether or not you can prove intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top