"Well Regulated" in today's terms

D

Derek Zeanah

New member
The Militia Act of 1792 required everyone "...being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45..." to: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power...[/quote]

How would that translate into today's terms, using modern technology?

Seems like this might make for a good Sunday afternoon discussion. :)


------------------
Yes, we did produce a near perfect republic, but will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction. -- Thomas Jefferson
 
DZ. I'm typing this in a rush, so please excuse the mispellings


U.S SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT (1982) "In the Militia act of 1792. the second congress defined 'militia of the United states' to include alsmost every free adult male in the united states. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum suplly od ammunition and military equipment....There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke od a "militia," they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable od bearing arms, and not to any formal group suchas what is tody called the national guard.

I think that shouls answer your question.
Paul B.
 
dzeanah,
You asked,"How would that translate into today's terms, using modern technology?"
A well-prepared citizenry being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
 
I believe that dzeanah is wondering what sort of arms they should require members of the militia to own.

Note, this wouldn't be a restriction of the sort that you can't own x, more of the sort, this state requires that you own y.

How about something along the lines of Switzerland, where every family would be required to own a real assault rifle with a few common calibers available. Want to provide for those who prefer .308 over 223. With at least 200 rounds of ammo?
 
George Will, who concluded that the Second Amendment should be repealed, stated that as it now stands, all "militia" as defined by the Act should possess an M-16 and know how to use it. (Sounds good to me.)

I take the comments about the ammunition to mean a minimum amount to be provideded by the individual.

At the time of the Act, the average age for males at the time of death was 47. This is a bit deceptive, given the high death rate for infants and small children. But generally, most working-class men were pretty well worn out by their mid-forties; the majority of all males were indeed farmers or what we today style as blue-collar working-class. It would not be unreasonable, today, to move that upper limit on age to some higher number.

Hope this helps, Art
 
The age of 45 is only limited to those who have NOT served in the military. If you are prior service, your militia obligation goes up to 63 years of age per 10 USC Chap. 13 Sec 311 which provides reference to 10 USC Chap. 3 Sec. 313.

10 USC Chap. 13 Sec.311(b)(1)&(2) also make it very clear what the ORGANIZED and the UNorganized militia is.

------------------

Desertscout
desertscout@hotmail.com

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."
--George Washington
 
Art, you're correct about George Will hating the Second Amendment... and all the rest of the Bill of Rights, as it would have to all be destroyed to confiscate our firearms the way that Whimp Will and his communistnazi comrades, like Sam "I'd Cower Under The Bed" Donaldson, want, and for which they crusade.

Will is just another low down, yellow bellied, elitist Marxist coward with a very good vocabulary. Other than that, he's not worth the new rope it would take to hang him... and all the rest of the yellow bellies at ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN, et al, ad nauseum.

JMHO. J.B.
 
Allow me to point out it is a very dangerous idea that Congress can pass an Act, any Act, redefining the meaning of the words of the Constitution. If there is any misunderstanding in any citizens mind as to the meaning of any word, sentence, or phrase in the simple worded Constitution then the proper place to seek answers is the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers explain the Constitution and there is no other more reliable source. Citizens need to understand the Constitution on at least two occasions in their life, voting and jury duty.

Both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, among many other works every citizen should be interested in knowing/learning, may be found at: constitution.org.

I am willing to help anyone in sharing constitutional information: ahampton@tcainternet.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top