TexasCHLforum.com

I was on another board discussing gun control when the issue of a militia came up. I find the anti-gun people love to state that the 2nd Amendment provides for Americans to own guns if they're part of a militia, and since militias don't exist anymore then it's no longer needed.

I did some digging, and found the following law defining a militia. Basically, we're almost ALL in the militia. Therefore, in my opinion, every American has a duty to own a firearm.

10 USC Ch 13, Sec 311:

§ 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.

Is this even up for debate anymore? I thought the Supreme Court settled this point when they ruled the the 2A applied to individuals. That should have thrown out the whole militia argument that is frequently cited by the gun control folks. Why are they still bringing this up?

Because they are wilfully stupid.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788

Here I thought it had been clear from the very founding of our nation, but I suppose we do have to wait until the SCOTUS signs off on the Constitution to be sure its constitutional.

Yeah, but you know that since the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" then they can say it means whatever they want it to mean, and the intention of the Founders doesn't mean anything. After all, the Founding Fathers could never have imagined a .50 BMG sniper rifle or anything like that, so obviously the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover weapons like that. It only covers what the equivalent today would be muskets of that time.

/sarcasm off

Kythas wrote:...the Founding Fathers could never have imagined a .50 BMG sniper rifle or anything like that, so obviously the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover weapons like that. It only covers what the equivalent today would be muskets of that time.

I actually know people that say this.. and are sincere...

My reply is that Yes, at the time it meant muskets, as that is what their government possessed as weaponry as well.
The Second amendment's goal was to always allow citizens to posess and bear the same weaponry as their government posessed.
This was to establish a balance of power, so the government was never more powerful than the citizenry. This was to keep
future governments from going all tyrannical, as happened to them. (Unfortunately, as we can see, it didn't exactly work as they intended)

In today's time, it means whatever OUR Government possesses as weaponry.

Kythas wrote:Yeah, but you know that since the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" then they can say it means whatever they want it to mean, and the intention of the Founders doesn't mean anything. After all, the Founding Fathers could never have imagined a .50 BMG sniper rifle or anything like that, so obviously the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover weapons like that. It only covers what the equivalent today would be muskets of that time.

/sarcasm off

Then the First Amendment only covers quill pens and hand-set moveable type on hand-operated presses.

Kythas wrote:Yeah, but you know that since the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" then they can say it means whatever they want it to mean, and the intention of the Founders doesn't mean anything. After all, the Founding Fathers could never have imagined a .50 BMG sniper rifle or anything like that, so obviously the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover weapons like that. It only covers what the equivalent today would be muskets of that time.

/sarcasm off

I hear that mumbo jumbo all the time from the Anti's.

The same argument could be made about the Freedom of the Press. We didn't have mass printing devices back then, nor the Internet. Should we restrict press to local regions only? (This usually shuts 'em up)

ETA: bdickens beat me to the punch!

"The People" have a right to own and carry weapons. Whatever "people" means in the 2nd, those are the same "people" who have 4th, 9th and 10th amendment rights.

uh-oh.... I'm 56 years old.... does that mean I can't be part of the militia


surv

Kythas wrote:Yeah, but you know that since the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" then they can say it means whatever they want it to mean, and the intention of the Founders doesn't mean anything. After all, the Founding Fathers could never have imagined a .50 BMG sniper rifle or anything like that, so obviously the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover weapons like that. It only covers what the equivalent today would be muskets of that time.

/sarcasm off

Sadly enough, I also have heard this same thing said with all sincerity.

Does anyone here know what caliber a colonial musket (such as the Brown Bess) was?

For those that aren't sure, the Brown Bess was a .75 caliber musket.

I claim that indeed the Founding Fathers were QUITE capable of inferring that the future would have weapons of much greater destructive capacity. In fact, I would argue that the whole point of the second amendment's initial clause (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...) was to remove the "only the military needs it" argument from the debate. We are supposed to have weapons of military design and utility, and we are supposed to know how to use them effectively (that is, be "well regulated" in the sense that it was used in the Constitution).

Kythas wrote:I was on another board discussing gun control when the issue of a militia came up. I find the anti-gun people love to state that the 2nd Amendment provides for Americans to own guns if they're part of a militia, and since militias don't exist anymore then it's no longer needed.

I did some digging, and found the following law defining a militia. Basically, we're almost ALL in the militia. Therefore, in my opinion, every American has a duty to own a firearm.

10 USC Ch 13, Sec 311:

§ 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.

One problem with that definition, it refers to the National Guard. The National Guard did not exist until 1916 with the passage of the National Defense Act. Not the same militia as in the 2A. The anti-guners use that definition to state that the 2A only applies to the National Guard.

JJVP wrote:
One problem with that definition, it refers to the National Guard. The National Guard did not exist until 1916 with the passage of the National Defense Act. Not the same militia as in the 2A. The anti-guners use that definition to state that the 2A only applies to the National Guard.

I'm not an historian so I'm probably all wet on this but I'm sure the term "National Guard" had meaning even if we didn't have one yet. Is that term defined anywhere in that document? Perhaps it was referring to any type of future government "Army".

Besides, the first sentance basically covers everyone. I don't like the 45 year old ceiling though.

JJVP wrote:
One problem with that definition, it refers to the National Guard. The National Guard did not exist until 1916 with the passage of the National Defense Act. Not the same militia as in the 2A. The anti-guners use that definition to state that the 2A only applies to the National Guard.

This law was revised by Congress in 2008. While it refers to the National Guard, it's only as it relates to the class of militia.

The militia is every able-bodied male citizen between 17-45 years of age, any non-citizen able bodied male ages 17-45 who has declared their intent to become a citizen, and any female member of the National Guard.

There are two classes of militia: Organized (the National Guard) and unorganized (everyone else).

I don't see where the National Guard reference limits this. This is not anything in the Constitution, it is US law as passed by Congress, which gives a legal definition of what a militia is in the United States.

This would be ammunition against the anti-gunners who state the 2A only applies to the National Guard, as they contend the militia is comprised solely of the National Guard. This law clearly shows the National Guard is only one component of the militia.

again, if the "law" cited above is the law of the land defining the militia as being a basis for the Second Amendment, and the two classes of militia are: 1. National Guard, or "organized militia"; 2. Citizens between the age of 17 and 45, or "unorganized militia", where does that cover those of us that are over 45 years of age?

I will stick to "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed"!

The rest of you under the age of 45 can debate the definition of "militia"!


surv