A well regulated Militia...

[MDman]

I was thinking...how many, if any of you belong to a Militia?

It just seems odd to me that we all own guns, but I seriously doubt if %10 of us are in something like a militia. I think I am going to start one in my town, and since there are no British to fight (right now) I think we will mostly be on pest control.

in all seriousness though do you think if more gun owners were part of a militia that they would be better accepted by the anti's and the general community, because now they are "trained" and serve a "purpose" or will it isolate them because now the crazy people with guns have organized.

curious on your thoughts about militia.

[Alnamvet]

I think of skin-heads, tattoo'd vanilla mis-fits, KKK, white supremists, Mark Furman....you know...that low class creep who had parents that brought him/her up to continue the legacy of being a low class creep racist...that's my take on militias.

[Manedwolf]

This is what I think of when I think of a militia.

This document is from 1836, from the state I live in.

[Alnamvet]

it's 2007 now Maned...

[DonR101395]

I don't have a problem with them on the surface, it's when they develop into the the neo nazi, skin head realm that I have a problem.

BTW: They are basically illegal here in Florida because we have a state law that bans paramilitary training.

[Don H]

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
Militia: composition and classes
(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.

[Yellowfin]

Aren't there anti nazi militias too? It seems like if there was a militia that's to defend against the bad militias then I'd be in favor of it.

[Tokamak]

The national guard, army, FBI etc come to mind.

[Justme]

I was in the Air Force for years. I am now 46 and too old to be in a militia. Having said that the old farts I went to my CCW class with would be a formidible foe. 90% of the guys had seen combat in Korea or Vietnam. There was only one guy younger than me.

The instructer said that the more rural sherrifs in the area think of CCW holders as defacto deputies. The Sherrif says most of the CCW holders and older, smarter, more mature and have more experience than the deputies he has(because the county won't let him pay enough money to get the better quality kids). In some ways CCW holders are the modern urban conflict version of the original militias.

[Manedwolf]

Alnamvet, your point?

Some of us still think that what the founding fathers originally intended would be the best course for this country. As in, a standing military only for the national defense and defense of interests abroad (which is what it's currently doing), and State Militias rather than National Guard (that can be taken away and used as overseas military) for defense of each state.

You see, right now, if something Really Bad happened here, there just aren't enough assets in each state to deal with it. They've gone overseas. The personnel, the equipment, the transport helicopters, the heavy equipment. We're vulnerable. A few Katrina-sized disasters or a few nukes in cities or an especially virulent epidemic, and...well...what would we do? What about a more serious incursion at a southern border? What could we respond with?

I suggest a re-reading of the Federalist Papers, among other documents.

BTW, my state's constitution still says:

[Art.] 24. [Militia.] A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defense, of a state.

June 2, 1784

[publius42]

BTW: They are basically illegal here in Florida because we have a state law that bans paramilitary training.

Does the law define paramilitary training? Seems to me that it would be hard to ban paramilitary training without banning some of the basic skills practiced by hunters such as navigation and target practice.

[Yellowfin]

It's just as important to have militias not tied to the state as a check against they themselves being abused. Just because the FBI and NG are good entities of themselves makes absolutely no guarantee at all that they won't be used for bad purposes by bad people above them. Historically, most mass abuses of power and resulting atrocities have been committed by doing precisely that. It's not foolproof. I'm sure the KKK has been employed under the table by a few unscrupulous LEOs and politicians from time to time as well.

[MDman]

I just found out its illegal here in Maryland unless I get the governors approval.
I had no idea how restricted it had become to have a militia.

[Yellowfin]

Hmm...has anyone asserted one's right to be in a militia as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment? Seems we never hear that asserted.

[CrazyIvan007]

Hmm...has anyone asserted one's right to be in a militia as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment? Seems we never hear that asserted.

There are many militias.

The Minutemen is a militia.
www.MinutemanHQ.com

Technically, a neighborhood watch group is a militia.

There is the "Americans for Justice Militia"

Here in Denver, we have a paramilitary militia that is kind of a civilian backup for police and are advocates for gun ownership freedom. I am trying to find it online, but can't. I remember seeing a news report for them on TV a few years ago. They are primarily made up of ex-police, military as well as trained citizens.

[Marko Kloos]

The Second Amendment guarantees no "right to be in a militia". In fact, the use of the term "militia" is almost irrelevant, as the first half of the Amendment is merely prefatory language.

[Molson]

Originally Posted by Mark Kloos

The Second Amendment guarantees no "right to be in a militia". In fact, the use of the term "militia" is almost irrelevant, as the first half of the Amendment is merely prefatory language

i half agree. i believe that the second amendment does, in fact, lay out the right/need for militias. but that right/need is seperate from the individual right to keep and bear arms, and is just one of many applications of that right.

i think it is very arguable that the 2nd amendment, on top of the RTKBA, lays out a civil right to have/create organized state militias consisting of citizens of the state seperate from the military/police/national guard.

[Eghad]

I dont see any right to form a militia in the 2A. The only right is the right of the people to own and bear arms so that they can constitute an armed milita.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

If you will review the history of militas, England had a muster law in the mid 1700s. In the early colonies decrees were issued that required each town to have armed men ready to respond to an emergency in the mid 1600s. The authority for militias came from a decree form some type of governmental body or group of leaders with the community. Their duties were probably strictly defined by the charter or decree.

I guess you and a group of people could form a militia but it would not be of a type like the historical militias. Texas has a Texas State Guard and Constitutional Ailitia.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:


"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."


My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:


"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."


After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right

[Eghad]

Historically militias have been formed by acts or degrees of some type of governing body. England had a Muster act in the 1700s. The colonies issued a decree to towns authorizing towns to form armed bodies of men for protection after 1600. The militias were also authorized by the provincial Congress in 1774. These militias had defined duties.

In Texas we have the Texas State Guard and the Constitutional militia which is organized by county.

So if you and some buddies decided to form a milita it wouldnt really be a militia in the true sense as it has no authorization form a community or governmental body.

[PT111]

Technically, a neighborhood watch group is a militia.

Excellent point! A sovereign nation exists only as it is able to defend itself from all enemies both foreign and domestic. Neither our police nor our armies can completely protect us from both therefore it is up to the individual people to support those groups. Isn't that what a militia is? If our police and armed forces cannot protect the US at all times then we must assist, therefore we are all part of a militia.

[DWARREN123]

A militia is a good idea. If nothing else to sit around and BS. Help during times of bad weather or national emergency and known to your neighbors. A good way to promote good citizenship.
Being racist or anything else would not be indorsed by the state.

[Eghad]

Actually the Neighborhood Watch is sponsored by the National Sheriffs association and usually works in association with a law enforcment agency. Its heritage can be traced back to the night watches which were groups appointed by a council or community group.

[grymster2007]

Eghad,

Thanks for...

THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

I had not seen that before and it helped to confirm my assessment of the 2A sentence.

[homefires]

Am I wrong? I assumed that it was a American Citizens Obligation to participate as part of the Militia, if actions were required!

There for, I am Militia!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia


Read This Part Well!


The original meaning of the Latin word is "military activity", or, since the ancient Romans had the same people fight crime or respond to disasters, "defense activity". In the idiom of English during the 18th century, the same word would often be used for an activity and for those who engage in it, so "militia" meant both defense activity and those who engage in it, whether as individuals or in concert with others. In later times the term has come to be used mainly to refer to armed groups, but it would be a mistake to use it that way in discussions of the concept in the U.S. Constitution

[grymster2007]

I like the idea of a neighborhood militia and might join one if its purpose were to defend and support the neighborhood in the event that the various government regulated entities could not.

In the case of an event where it was clear that citizens were on their own, it’d be nice to have some confidence that when my neighbor showed up with gun in hand, he was there to discuss the defense and possible pooling of our collective survival resources, rather than wondering if he was merely intent on supplementing his own.

While I do not read 2A as granting or protecting any right for a citizen’s militia, I wouldn’t be surprised if some states had laws expressly prohibiting entities resembling militias. Anyone know of states that do?