Reply #313: Does the 2nd Amendment only apply to militias? [View All]

[gorfle]

Are you part of a militia? Is it well-regulated?

The "you aren't part of the militia" argument has many holes in it, FTGFN.

The first is that there is, in fact, both an organized militia and an unorganized militia.

From: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20080...

January 8, 2008: Most American men are unaware that they are in the army, or, as described by the Militia Act of 1903 (popularly known as the Dick Act), the unorganized militia. The main purpose of the Dick Act was to sort out over a century of confusion over the relationship between the state militias (now known as the National Guard) and the federal forces. The 1903 law was the first of many laws hammered out to create the system now in use. But in the last century, not much attention has been paid to the little known "unorganized militia" angle. This force contained every able-bodied adult male who was not a part of the organized militia. The 1903 law legalized the right not to be part of the organized militia, because a 1792 law had mandated that every adult male be part of the militia. The problem was, most men didn't want to be bothered. To deal with this, state governors created two classes of militia; paid (who trained and were armed and organized into units) and unorganized (everyone else.)

The militia is a state institution, and predates the founding of the United States. It harkens back to the ancient tribal practice, where every able bodied male turned out to defend the tribe. During the colonial period, this really only meant anything in frontier areas, where hostile Indians sometimes required the use an armed militia force. In the late 18th century, only about ten percent of American families possessed a firearm, usually a musket or shotgun. Weapon ownership was much more common on the frontier, and in more settled areas, men with muskets often joined the organized militia more to be with their hunting buddies, than to prepare for war. The urban militia was sometimes used as a paramilitary force, when there was civil disorder or some kind of natural disaster. During the American Revolution, the militia served mainly as a police force, especially since about a third of the population were loyalists.

Currently, the "unorganized militia" is expected to come up when the Supreme Court again considers the laws pertaining to the right to possess firearms. Many localities have outlawed or regulated that right, which is guaranteed (but not precisely spelled out) in the Constitution. Nevertheless, if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know.

But, as far as I'm concerned, all the legal wrangling over the meanings of what is a militia and who is really in it is just a bunch of semantic arm waving.

The real issue here is what was the intentions of the founding fathers. I urge you to read Federalist 29:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29....

It is very clear that the founding fathers intended that there be no standing federal army, or at least a very small one. The reason was that they feared it would become a tool for a tryannical federal government. To counter this possibility, yet still provide for the defense of the nation, they proposed that the STATES would each have their own armies (militias), made up of men from those states, and led by officers from those states. By decentralizing the army, they hoped that the federal government would have no military muscle by which to enforce a tryanny. The purpose of militias - state run military forces - was to serve as a counterbalance to federal military power. It is essential to understand and agree on this point before any other debate can be served on the matter.

All of this changed in 1903/1910. At that point the state militias became the National Guard. What this did was effectively convert state military forces into federal reserve forces. Now, instead of serving to counter federal military power, the National Guard serves to augment federal military power.

If you stick to the argument that only people in the National Guard can own firearms, then you have destroyed the counterbalance clearly intended by the founding fathers.

Thus even if the founding fathers intended for the people of the militias to be able to keep and bear arms, the reason for this was to serve as a counterbalance to federal military power. Even if the militias they envisioned are gone, the people are not! In order for the vision of the founding fathers to be preserved, the right to keep and bear arms must fall back to the people, militias or no!

Usually at this point anti-gun folks give up the militia angle of the argument and proceed on to say that any resistance of the people against a modern military force is futile. Iraq is a great example of how this is untrue. We will ultimately be driven out of Iraq because the American people are tired of the cost, morally and in lives and dollars, of staying there. Just like happened to the British a couple hundred years ago.