Although Jefferson didn't get everything into the constitution he wanted, he clearly believed in the right of the people to over throw the government. Now how are you going to do that if they have all the guns?
Origins of the 'Right to Bear Arms'
- Thread starter 1sttruck
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
I provided the initial proposals and development of the 2nd amendment, which says more about what the founder's meant about the 2nd amendment than just about anything. They did not choose include statements about the right to bear arms outside of the context of the militia.
The militia line of attack on the 2nd Amendment always amazes me. What do you think a militia is? In those days they had a regular standing army, like today, and ad hoc armed groups called militias. The 2nd lays out a very simple cause and effect: The US needs to be able to quickly raise a militia, therefore everyone needs to have his own gun. That simple logic is lost on the liberals, perhaps because they refuse to understand what that word militia even means.
I provided the initial proposals and development of the 2nd amendment, which says more about what the founder's meant about the 2nd amendment than just about anything. They did not choose include statements about the right to bear arms outside of the context of the militia.
The militia line of attack on the 2nd Amendment always amazes me. What do you think a militia is? In those days they had a regular standing army, like today, and ad hoc armed groups called militias. The 2nd lays out a very simple cause and effect: The US needs to be able to quickly raise a militia, therefore everyone needs to have his own gun. That simple logic is lost on the liberals, perhaps because they refuse to understand what that word militia even means.
Quote:
But none of these were used, instead we see a well regulated militia being mentioned first, which is different than a number of individuals living in the same area.
Based on what??
The "well regulated" means well trained or properly disciplined.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
The very idea that the Founders would grant power to the government to restrict gun rights in the Bill of Rights is just nuts.
But none of these were used, instead we see a well regulated militia being mentioned first, which is different than a number of individuals living in the same area.
Based on what??
The "well regulated" means well trained or properly disciplined.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
The very idea that the Founders would grant power to the government to restrict gun rights in the Bill of Rights is just nuts.
Originally Posted By: labman
Although Jefferson didn't get everything into the constitution he wanted, he clearly believed in the right of the people to over throw the government. Now how are you going to do that if they have all the guns?
That is what I believe the 2nd amendment is about. When we won the revolution is was not because we had a strong gov't and standing professional military.
I don't believe the National Guard is the militia due to the fact that they ultimately report to the POTUS and are fully in the Active military's chain of command.
Although Jefferson didn't get everything into the constitution he wanted, he clearly believed in the right of the people to over throw the government. Now how are you going to do that if they have all the guns?
That is what I believe the 2nd amendment is about. When we won the revolution is was not because we had a strong gov't and standing professional military.
I don't believe the National Guard is the militia due to the fact that they ultimately report to the POTUS and are fully in the Active military's chain of command.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of your positions; I just find it amazing that this thread hasn't been locked yet. There seems to be a softening of the BITOG R-S-P rules lately.
We are talking about constitutional law and history. Not why current candidate or party x is better than y.
Not really P IMHO, but I'm not a Mod.
Not really P IMHO, but I'm not a Mod.
"The very idea that the Founders would grant power to the government to restrict gun rights in the Bill of Rights is just nuts."
No, it's very basic law. You seem to think that your favorite right is unlimited, where the government has no authority to consider that right in the context of others. That being the case then it should be lawful for anyone to buy any weapon, own any weapon, carry any weapon anywhere, and sell any weapon to anyone, with no inteference from the government because that wwould otherwise be a restriction of gun rights. That being the case please advocate the 'machine guns for felons', 'pistols for school kids', 'grenades for airline pasengers' programs for starters, otherwise you're just a gun grabbing liberal who is restricting the obvious gun rights that the founders intended.
No, it's very basic law. You seem to think that your favorite right is unlimited, where the government has no authority to consider that right in the context of others. That being the case then it should be lawful for anyone to buy any weapon, own any weapon, carry any weapon anywhere, and sell any weapon to anyone, with no inteference from the government because that wwould otherwise be a restriction of gun rights. That being the case please advocate the 'machine guns for felons', 'pistols for school kids', 'grenades for airline pasengers' programs for starters, otherwise you're just a gun grabbing liberal who is restricting the obvious gun rights that the founders intended.
Originally Posted By: tom slick
I don't believe the National Guard is the militia due to the fact that they ultimately report to the POTUS and are fully in the Active military's chain of command.
Not to mention the fact that National Guard members are professional. That is, they are paid for their service. All standard definitions of a militia (I might be wrong, please point out otherwise if so) explicitly state that they are not paid for any service that they provide.
I don't believe the National Guard is the militia due to the fact that they ultimately report to the POTUS and are fully in the Active military's chain of command.
Not to mention the fact that National Guard members are professional. That is, they are paid for their service. All standard definitions of a militia (I might be wrong, please point out otherwise if so) explicitly state that they are not paid for any service that they provide.
Last edited:
Even the founding fathers acknowledged that the right to bear arms was not an absolute right with no restrictions, see the proposal for the bill of rights convention below that I've posted several times now.
"The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania To Their Constituents
18 December 1787
7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.."
"The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania To Their Constituents
18 December 1787
7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.."
Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
"The very idea that the Founders would grant power to the government to restrict gun rights in the Bill of Rights is just nuts."
No, it's very basic law. You seem to think that your favorite right is unlimited, where the government has no authority to consider that right in the context of others. That being the case then it should be lawful for anyone to buy any weapon, own any weapon, carry any weapon anywhere, and sell any weapon to anyone, with no inteference from the government because that wwould otherwise be a restriction of gun rights. That being the case please advocate the 'machine guns for felons', 'pistols for school kids', 'grenades for airline pasengers' programs for starters, otherwise you're just a gun grabbing liberal who is restricting the obvious gun rights that the founders intended.
Then you can surely point to where I (or anyone else for that matter) have stated this?
Removing a particular individuals rights due to them proving themselves to be dangerous via previous actions is very much different from removing every one's right to bear arms because of one individual's actions.
The fact that the 2nd Amendment is written in the context of a militia (as you have noted) indicates that the Founders did indeed intend people to be in possession of military type armament (arms). They did not say muskets or rifles.
They had just finished fighting a war of independence which they had won only because they were able to arm themselves. Indeed, the war was started because the British were sent out to remove the arms from the Colonists. There is no reason to expect them to grant the Federal government broad power to restrict the rights of the people be armed (including military type weapons).
"The very idea that the Founders would grant power to the government to restrict gun rights in the Bill of Rights is just nuts."
No, it's very basic law. You seem to think that your favorite right is unlimited, where the government has no authority to consider that right in the context of others. That being the case then it should be lawful for anyone to buy any weapon, own any weapon, carry any weapon anywhere, and sell any weapon to anyone, with no inteference from the government because that wwould otherwise be a restriction of gun rights. That being the case please advocate the 'machine guns for felons', 'pistols for school kids', 'grenades for airline pasengers' programs for starters, otherwise you're just a gun grabbing liberal who is restricting the obvious gun rights that the founders intended.
Then you can surely point to where I (or anyone else for that matter) have stated this?
Removing a particular individuals rights due to them proving themselves to be dangerous via previous actions is very much different from removing every one's right to bear arms because of one individual's actions.
The fact that the 2nd Amendment is written in the context of a militia (as you have noted) indicates that the Founders did indeed intend people to be in possession of military type armament (arms). They did not say muskets or rifles.
They had just finished fighting a war of independence which they had won only because they were able to arm themselves. Indeed, the war was started because the British were sent out to remove the arms from the Colonists. There is no reason to expect them to grant the Federal government broad power to restrict the rights of the people be armed (including military type weapons).
The British went to Concord to seize the militia stores, since well regulated militias kept stores of weapons, powder, etc., and met for training on a regular basis at specific locations.
Looking at earlier examples of militia laws like Virginia's, which the Militia Act of 1792 appears to have been based upon, and also considering previous proposals to bear arms for reasons other than use in a militia, it is clear that one cannot separate the right to bear arms from that of a 'well regulated militia'. In both examples below we see the requirement for a bayonet, mustering, training, etc.
The discussion of the right to bear arms when forming the bill of rights was a discussion of state militias vs a federal army, where the ideal of the militia was that no standing army would be needed. But, even during the Revolutionary War it was acknowledged that the militias were typically unreliable, they again proved so in the early years of the country, all the way up to the Spanish Civil War, after which legislation finally created the National Guard as a means to regulate the state militias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_militia
A Well Regulated Militia During the French & Indian War
"WHEREAS it is necessary, in this time of danger, that the militia of this colony should be well regulated and disciplined...And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every person so as aforesaid inlisted (except free mulattoes, negroes, and Indians) shall be armed in the manner following, that is to say: Every soldier shall he furnished with a firelock well fixed, a bayonet fitted to the same, a double cartouch-box, and three charges of powder, and constantly appear with the same at the time and place appointed for muster and exercise, and shall also keep at his place of abode one pound of powder and four pounds of ball, and bring the same with him into the field when he shall be required...And for the better training and exercising the militia, and rendering them more serviceable, Be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every captain shall, once in three months, and oftner if thereto required by the lieutenant or chief commanding officer in the county, muster, train, and exercise his company, and the lieutenant or other chief commanding officer in the county shall cause a general muster and exercise of all the companies within his county, to be made in the months of March or April, and September or October, yearly; and if any soldier shall, at any general or private muster, refuse to perform the command of his officer, or behave himself refractorily or mutinously, or misbehave himself at the courts martial to be held in pursuance of this act, as is herein after directed, it shall and may be lawful to and for the chief commanding officer, then present, to cause such offender to be tied neck and heels, for any time not exceeding five minutes, or inflict such corporal punishment as he shall think fit, not exceeding twenty lashes. .." [2]An Act for the better regulating and disciplining the Militia, April 1757.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792
"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, 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; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."
Looking at earlier examples of militia laws like Virginia's, which the Militia Act of 1792 appears to have been based upon, and also considering previous proposals to bear arms for reasons other than use in a militia, it is clear that one cannot separate the right to bear arms from that of a 'well regulated militia'. In both examples below we see the requirement for a bayonet, mustering, training, etc.
The discussion of the right to bear arms when forming the bill of rights was a discussion of state militias vs a federal army, where the ideal of the militia was that no standing army would be needed. But, even during the Revolutionary War it was acknowledged that the militias were typically unreliable, they again proved so in the early years of the country, all the way up to the Spanish Civil War, after which legislation finally created the National Guard as a means to regulate the state militias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_militia
A Well Regulated Militia During the French & Indian War
"WHEREAS it is necessary, in this time of danger, that the militia of this colony should be well regulated and disciplined...And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every person so as aforesaid inlisted (except free mulattoes, negroes, and Indians) shall be armed in the manner following, that is to say: Every soldier shall he furnished with a firelock well fixed, a bayonet fitted to the same, a double cartouch-box, and three charges of powder, and constantly appear with the same at the time and place appointed for muster and exercise, and shall also keep at his place of abode one pound of powder and four pounds of ball, and bring the same with him into the field when he shall be required...And for the better training and exercising the militia, and rendering them more serviceable, Be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every captain shall, once in three months, and oftner if thereto required by the lieutenant or chief commanding officer in the county, muster, train, and exercise his company, and the lieutenant or other chief commanding officer in the county shall cause a general muster and exercise of all the companies within his county, to be made in the months of March or April, and September or October, yearly; and if any soldier shall, at any general or private muster, refuse to perform the command of his officer, or behave himself refractorily or mutinously, or misbehave himself at the courts martial to be held in pursuance of this act, as is herein after directed, it shall and may be lawful to and for the chief commanding officer, then present, to cause such offender to be tied neck and heels, for any time not exceeding five minutes, or inflict such corporal punishment as he shall think fit, not exceeding twenty lashes. .." [2]An Act for the better regulating and disciplining the Militia, April 1757.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792
"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, 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; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."
Yet another post without a point. Do you have one?
The National Guard is NOT the militia. Please provide proof to the contrary.
The National Guard is NOT the militia. Please provide proof to the contrary.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The National Guard is NOT the militia.
So true! I get tired of telling people this. The simple truth is that the national guard didn't even exist when the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amend. Therefore, who's left? WE THE PEOPLE!
The National Guard is NOT the militia.
So true! I get tired of telling people this. The simple truth is that the national guard didn't even exist when the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amend. Therefore, who's left? WE THE PEOPLE!
1sttruck has an apparent tendency to advance a fractional framework for his arguments in reference to the 2nd. Amendment - generally leaving the "Keep and" out of his posts, including the thread title. Thanks Tempest, for staying on point.
"The fact that the 2nd Amendment is written in the context of a militia (as you have noted) indicates that the Founders did indeed intend people to be in possession of military type armament (arms). They did not say muskets or rifles."
"Yet another post without a point. Do you have one?"
An example.....You make a statement that the founding fathers didn't intend 'arms' to mean muskets, I provide some examples of laws that were passed by the founding fathers that make it clear that military muskets were what was intended, and you don't seem to be able to make the connection. In spite of proposals to merely say that the right to bears shall not be infringed, in spite of proposals to say that the right to bear arms is based upon the need to hunt, etc., all were rejected and we end up with a right to bear arms in the context of the militia. That being the case it's then important to see what the expectations for a well regulated militia were, and militia laws passed by states and the federal government are a good place to start.
"The National Guard is NOT the militia. Please provide proof to the contrary."
The National Guard is the militia, by law. By state and federal law people of certain age groups are also members of the 'unorganized militia', which by definition is not well regulated. Still, some of the major federal firearm laws are based upon the laws regarding a militia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
"Yet another post without a point. Do you have one?"
An example.....You make a statement that the founding fathers didn't intend 'arms' to mean muskets, I provide some examples of laws that were passed by the founding fathers that make it clear that military muskets were what was intended, and you don't seem to be able to make the connection. In spite of proposals to merely say that the right to bears shall not be infringed, in spite of proposals to say that the right to bear arms is based upon the need to hunt, etc., all were rejected and we end up with a right to bear arms in the context of the militia. That being the case it's then important to see what the expectations for a well regulated militia were, and militia laws passed by states and the federal government are a good place to start.
"The National Guard is NOT the militia. Please provide proof to the contrary."
The National Guard is the militia, by law. By state and federal law people of certain age groups are also members of the 'unorganized militia', which by definition is not well regulated. Still, some of the major federal firearm laws are based upon the laws regarding a militia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
"The National Defense Act of 1916 is, with the exception of the United States Constitution, the most important piece of legislation in the history of the National Guard. It transformed the militia from individual state forces into a Reserve Component of the U.S. Army - and made the term "National Guard" mandatory."
If the militia was "transformed" into a National Guard, it wouldn't be a militia anymore would it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
If the militia was "transformed" into a National Guard, it wouldn't be a militia anymore would it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
Quote:
I provide some examples of laws that were passed by the founding fathers that make it clear that military muskets were what was intended, and you don't seem to be able to make the connection.
These are specific laws written AT THE TIME. How are they supposed to write that every citizen be armed with an M16 before they were available or even thought of?
This is your PROOF that the Founding Fathers meant them only to have muskets? THAT IS ALL THAT WAS ARROUND at the time.
From your post:
Quote:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, 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; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."
This is proof that the government expected people to be well armed!
Quote:
The National Guard is the militia, by law. By state and federal law people of certain age groups are also members of the 'unorganized militia', which by definition is not well regulated. Still, some of the major federal firearm laws are based upon the laws regarding a militia.
From your link:
Quote:
The National Defense Act of 1916 is, with the exception of the United States Constitution, the most important piece of legislation in the history of the National Guard. It transformed the militia from individual state forces into a Reserve Component of the U.S. Army - and made the term "National Guard" mandatory.
This is NOT a militia and is not enumerated in the Constitution. By your own source, the National Guard is a separate reserve member of the regular Army.
(Oops, Samilcar beat me to this one...
)
I provide some examples of laws that were passed by the founding fathers that make it clear that military muskets were what was intended, and you don't seem to be able to make the connection.
These are specific laws written AT THE TIME. How are they supposed to write that every citizen be armed with an M16 before they were available or even thought of?
This is your PROOF that the Founding Fathers meant them only to have muskets? THAT IS ALL THAT WAS ARROUND at the time.
From your post:
Quote:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, 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; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."
This is proof that the government expected people to be well armed!
Quote:
The National Guard is the militia, by law. By state and federal law people of certain age groups are also members of the 'unorganized militia', which by definition is not well regulated. Still, some of the major federal firearm laws are based upon the laws regarding a militia.
From your link:
Quote:
The National Defense Act of 1916 is, with the exception of the United States Constitution, the most important piece of legislation in the history of the National Guard. It transformed the militia from individual state forces into a Reserve Component of the U.S. Army - and made the term "National Guard" mandatory.
This is NOT a militia and is not enumerated in the Constitution. By your own source, the National Guard is a separate reserve member of the regular Army.
(Oops, Samilcar beat me to this one...
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
"The Bureau was known as the Militia Bureau until it was designated as the National Guard Bureau by an amendment to Section 81 of the National Defense Act on June 15, 1933. Furthermore, this amendment worked towards settling the issue of the National Guard as a reserve component. It stated that there would be two National Guards: the National Guard of the several States, and the National Guard of the United States. The former would be the individual State militias, employed in local emergencies and national defense. The latter would be a deployable reserve component of the Army."
"The Bureau was known as the Militia Bureau until it was designated as the National Guard Bureau by an amendment to Section 81 of the National Defense Act on June 15, 1933. Furthermore, this amendment worked towards settling the issue of the National Guard as a reserve component. It stated that there would be two National Guards: the National Guard of the several States, and the National Guard of the United States. The former would be the individual State militias, employed in local emergencies and national defense. The latter would be a deployable reserve component of the Army."
And the point is?????????
"And the point is?????????"
You can't intelligently discuss the militia and the right to bear arms unless you start with some basic understanding of what the militia is per previous and current law. You said "This is NOT a militia and is not enumerated in the Constitution." and I've tried to provide some replies and links so that you could figure that out. Instead you keep making blatently incorrect statements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States
Title 10 of the US Code states:
(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.[14]
Many states also maintain their own State Defense Forces. These forces are federally recognized militia but not as an armed force service. Because of this, they are separate from the National Guard and are not meant to be federalized. They serve the state exclusively, especially when the National Guard is deployed or otherwise unavailable.
Constitutional basis for the National Guard
National Guardsmen, Penn Station, New York CityThe United States National Guard is authorized by the Constitution of the United States. As originally drafted, the Constitution limited the mustering of state militias: without the consent of Congress, states could not "keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,...or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." (Article I, Section 10; Clause 3) Congress, however, had a duty to protect states from invasion and domestic violence (Article IV, Section 4).
State militias are not entirely independent, however, because they may be federalized. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the United States Congress is given the power to pass laws for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Congress may appropriate funds to support state militias (clause 12), and may:
"provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." (clause 16)
The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the state militias "when called into the actual Service of the United States". (Article II, Section 2).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces
State Defense Forces ("SDF") (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, or State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government, although they are regulated by the National Guard Bureau through the Army National Guard of the United States.[1]
Training standards vary widely. In most states, the SDF is unarmed. Most SDF's lack the training standards to be armed, and state legislators have long feared legal consequences for arming an under-trained force.
You can't intelligently discuss the militia and the right to bear arms unless you start with some basic understanding of what the militia is per previous and current law. You said "This is NOT a militia and is not enumerated in the Constitution." and I've tried to provide some replies and links so that you could figure that out. Instead you keep making blatently incorrect statements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States
Title 10 of the US Code states:
(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.[14]
Many states also maintain their own State Defense Forces. These forces are federally recognized militia but not as an armed force service. Because of this, they are separate from the National Guard and are not meant to be federalized. They serve the state exclusively, especially when the National Guard is deployed or otherwise unavailable.
Constitutional basis for the National Guard
National Guardsmen, Penn Station, New York CityThe United States National Guard is authorized by the Constitution of the United States. As originally drafted, the Constitution limited the mustering of state militias: without the consent of Congress, states could not "keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,...or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." (Article I, Section 10; Clause 3) Congress, however, had a duty to protect states from invasion and domestic violence (Article IV, Section 4).
State militias are not entirely independent, however, because they may be federalized. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the United States Congress is given the power to pass laws for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Congress may appropriate funds to support state militias (clause 12), and may:
"provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." (clause 16)
The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the state militias "when called into the actual Service of the United States". (Article II, Section 2).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces
State Defense Forces ("SDF") (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, or State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government, although they are regulated by the National Guard Bureau through the Army National Guard of the United States.[1]
Training standards vary widely. In most states, the SDF is unarmed. Most SDF's lack the training standards to be armed, and state legislators have long feared legal consequences for arming an under-trained force.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
