Question about "Well regulated militias"

[madinmaryland]

Per the constitution,

"The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army, and Navy, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States"

Ammendment 2 states:

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The question I have, is that there are over 500 of these Militia's around the country. Would these "Militia's" answer the call, if pressed into service by the Commander in Chief of the United States (At this point, President Obama). And if they didn't, what would happen?

Or do these militias first have to be sanctioned by the states??

[wtmusic]

1. Like the 3/5 compromise, it's an antiquated notion

from the days before a modern army.

In a moment, you'll see below the NRA's dream interpretation.

[villager]

3. For proliferationists, "well regulated militia" means any enraged nut who wants military-grade

...weapons, all of which should be made freely available at the local Target and Kroger's...

[TheWraith]

23. What a lovely fluffy strawman you have there. nt

[villager]

28. What a lovely way to avoid what you think"regulated" means. nt

[Statistical]

56. well regulated = effective, functioning, in good order, maintained n/t

[villager]

77. as determined by who? The NRA? n/t

[Statistical]

80. As determined by supporting documents of the time period. The NRA canard? Come on.

The term "regulation" to mean legislative action was not in usage in 1700s.
If someone wanted to describe legislation to regulate a bank for example they wouldn't say regulation they would say legislation.


From Oxford Dictionary

Regulated
...


b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

From federalist papers #29

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

From Journal of Continental Congress December 13, 1777

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

....

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

Do you think Congress was concerned that the Indians have better legislation relating to their troops or that they were more effective, more disciplines?


From George Washington's Letters

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

Do you think Washington was advising the town to increase the legislation affecting their militia or maybe making up deficiency in troop strengths from the "best" militia (discipline, efficiency).

These are just few examples there are hundreds of them.

What you won't find is example indicating the "well regulated" means "govt legislation".


Oxford English Dictionary 1690

[villager]

85. "The documents of the period." Ergo, as discussed elsewhere in this thread

...no longer applicable to modernity, with about as much utility as deciding who is "2/3" of a human being, etc...

[X_Digger]

86. And if the second amendment were the source of the right, that would have some bearing..

But glad to see that you finally see the light about 'well-regulated'.

I fully expect you to avoid that meme now that you have been properly educated, m'kay?

[Statistical]

88. The applicability of law, statutes, amendments can change.

Applicability can change, the scope can change, nuances can change, however the entire meaning can't just change because popular language changes. If it could then nothing could be counted on, no protection would be worth the paper it was written on. By your "logic" if the definition of "abortion" in popular language were to change (over decades or centuries) to include birth control then some future Republicans could say "abortion" means birth control pill is protected and thus Roe v. Wade doesn't apply to "fetus removal" which is now illegal.

Courts look at original intent to determine the intent of statute at the time it was written. The gray area can shift but you can't rewrite the entire law just because of language change. This is what you are trying to do. We can argue what restrictions apply, and how those change over time, and what the processes are to regulation firearms but you can't completely change the definition.

BTW the 2/3rd rule is technically still in effect. Any slaves that exist in the Union today would be counted as 2/3rd of a person however The Emancipation made Slavery illegal in the Union and thus no slaves exist so 2/3rd of 0 is still 0.

There is a legal method to do something similar to the 2A it is called amending the Constitution.

Lastly the Bill of rights grants NOTHING. The Bill of Rights only protects rights that pre-exist the Constitution. The right for citizens to keep and bear arms is a fact and isn't going away regardless of how you may try to change the meaning of "well regulated".

[TheWraith]

95. If you'd like to change the constitution, there's a legally sanctioned method for doing that.

It was used to rub out the three fifths compromise (or "two thirds" as you keep misquoting it) when the political forces that required that deal were no longer present. Until then, you don't get to decide what is and is not applicable depending on whether the wording is what you prefer. Hell, the entire constitution is a "document of that period," therefore by your standards it should be thrown out and replaced, right? It's not modern, therefore it's irrelevant.

[tburnsten]

104. "Regulate" has many meanings

it is only very recently that the meaning concurrent with "oversight" or "control" has been used even close to half the time.

In the past, as now, it meant properly functioning, functioning to specs, etc.

A shotgun or rifle with two barrels, for instance, is said to be "well-regulated" when both barrels shoot to the same point of aim at some specified distance.

That is the meaning that was most common at the time, that is the meaning that the authors of the Bill of Rights used, and I gather that you disagree, however, you are wrong if you do.

[michreject]

75. That would be nice

mail order sux. My mail lady is starting to complain about the weight.

[wysimdnwyg]

2. These militias are missing a vital piece to that

"A well regulated Militia..." does not mean "Fred and his buddies who like to hang out and clean their guns".

[madinmaryland]

5. That to me, would mean that Fred and his buddies are more or less a club

that like to play army on the weekend. If Fred's Army were to apprise against the government, it would seem to me, that would be an act of treason.

If Fred's army were to be sanctioned by the State (i.e.) Oklahoma, then Fred's Army would be under the command of the POTUS! Boy the irony of that!

[TheWraith]

24. "Well regulated" in 1700s parlance meant "properly functioning."

As in trained, competent, and capable.

[immoderate]

34. Actually, that's pretty close to what it does mean...

See federalist #29. Well regulated, in the language of the day, means well qualified. And the militia means anyone who can bear arms to defend the country. The idea was to avoid standing armies.

--imm

[Thothmes]

62. Not the case

the aim was to avoid a large standing army. The 2nd amendment post dates article I section 8 of the Constitution.

[immoderate]

102. That's what I said.

Sure you wanted to reply to me?

--imm

[Walk away]

4. My old neighbors in Rutherford belonged to that "well regulated militia"

They had a garage full of guns and ammo. Luckily for the neighborhood, they got drunk one night and almost killed each other. Now....no more guns, no more "militia". The police carted the whole shooting match away and arrested them all. No more permits!

[HopeHoops]

6. It obviously means that I should have a rocket launcher mounted on the roof of my minivan.

And I wouldn't mind an Apache chopper (fully armed). I have enough room in the back yard to park it. The tank might take a toll on the driveway, so I'll probably just park that in the front yard next to the Chevy up on blocks. And open carry CLEARLY means I can take a grenade launcher with me when I go to the grocery store, just in case somebody gets in the express lane with 11 items.

[madinmaryland]

8. Uhmm. If someone gets in line with more items than allowed in the express line,

then they deserve it!!

[HopeHoops]

9. That was EXACTLY my thinking.

[wtmusic]

10. With the Apache, the neighbor-loud-party problem

is no longer a problem. :thumbsup:

[HopeHoops]

13. Or that BECOMES the problem.

[X_Digger]

7. All males 17-45 are part of the unorganized militia (hence manditory registration).

And they can be called up via the draft.

[madinmaryland]

11. Sort of. We have a selective service system in place to facilitate a draft,

but I believe it would take an act of congress to reinstitute the draft.

[X_Digger]

14. true, true, I was shorthand-ing it.

Point being that no, the old grey beards couldn't be called up, but the young ones could.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

12. Technically, Sir

The term 'militia' denotes all able-bodied adult citizens capable of bearing arms. At the time that clause was written, this meant of course only white males, but translated to modern parlance it would include all races and genders. Persons constituing 'the militia' can be summoned to Federal colors, whether they have joined a private club calling itself a militia or not....

[madinmaryland]

19. Then by your definition, then all citizens of this country are designated as

"militia", except for maybe convicted felons and those in prison. Is that what you are saying?

[The Magistrate]

27. Pretty Much, Sir, Yes

It is an antiquated definition, and for that matter an antiquated concept, but it remains the standing definition underlying the usage, and particularly its usage in the Second Amendment. It dates from a period when one turned out the coutry populace with agricultural implements turned to the uses of war, and survived into a time when the workings of standard military firearms were exceedingly simple, and not much time was needed to make a man passable at the basic drill. It would today be nonesense, and of a particularly bloody-minded sort, to call up the citizens of a county with what weapons they possessed, and perhaps some scrapings of a National Guard armory, and set them in front of an invading army as soldiers in battle.

[villager]

30. so if we agree we're working with antiquated definitions...

... how do we update those definitions in the age the armor-piercing bullet, the multiple round, the easy-to-reload chamber, et al?

[The Magistrate]

42. Hard To Say, Sir

In terms of modern conventional war, 'militia' as long understood is worse than useless; in terms of guerrilla war, the operative implements are not firearms but explosive and detonators.

The only practical uses of 'milita' in the preent day are civil; the disaster relief and occasional supplements of law enforcement the National Guards of the several states are turned to at times.

If one considers the 'original intent' of the Founders in writing the Second Amendment, namely the provision of an armed force to protect the country that could obviate the need for any substantial standing armed forces maintained in peace as in war by the Federal government, then the thing must be regarded as a dead letter, on a par with instruction on the building of clipper ships or regulations on the maintainance and sale of slaves.

[villager]

52. I agree, Mr. Magistrate!

It would seem that spending over half our allocatable tax dollars on a standing army and its various "accouterments" obviates the original language...

[Statistical]

64. A quote about antiquated definitions...

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

DC v. Heller (2008)

While the 2A may not be necessary it doesn't go away defacto by virtue of its obsolescence. I don't fear having troops quartered in my home but that Constitutional protection still stands in the unlikely case it is needed.

If you feel citizens should not have the individual right to keep and bear arms then the founders left you a remedy, repeal the 2nd amendment.

[The Magistrate]

67. The Discussion Here, Sir, Concerns The Meaning Of 'Militia', And Extends No Further

As an item intended to establish an alternative to a large standing army as the chief implement of military power in the United States, the Second Amendment is a dead letter; the United States employs and maintains standing military forces of tremendous size and power, and militia forces have only the most subordinate, or even vestigial role, in the military power of the country.

[Statistical]

76. Today yes however nothing would prevent that from changing.

Likely as our false economic empire collapses we may need to rely on State militias (only called up in wartime) to vastly reduce size of our standing army and thus our military expenditures.

The second protects citizen's access to firearms and as such enables any future militia to be "well regulated" (effective, competent, and lethal). Sadly I feel the rise of a super standing army has resulted in the exact negative the founders feared (vasts amounts of treasure spent on upkeep, rise of MIC, entanglements in unnecessary wars, etc).

BTW: I worked for a living (Sgt First Class - US Army) so there is no need to call me Sir. :) (Little enlisted humor there).

[The Magistrate]

79. Fair Enough, Sergeant

Still, actual parity between the populace and the govermnments forces, or even just the familiarity of the citizen with the real tools of the soldier, would require the possession of fully automatic weapons, and at least the lighter forms of artillery, such as mortars and shoulder-fired rockets, as well as grenades, by private citizens. That is not going to happen. But in the eighteenth century, and for no little portion of the nineteenth, the firearms posessed by the citizen were essentially those of the soldier, and even artillery could be had by private persons.

[Statistical]

81. Agreed it is unlikely we will ever have a militia that is in keeping with founder's vision.

Hypothetically there is nothing to prevent us from cutting armed forces say 90%, recalling troops from foreign countries and instructing the States to form organized militias.

Artillery, coastal defense boats, even gunships (piloted by citizen pilots) could be handled by militias. Obviously some "core" standing army would be necessary for nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, etc however the size of the military could be reduced to a tiny fraction of its current size. I am not naive enough to think it *will* happen just that it could happen. Like it is far too late for any radical change now. I think the time for us to make a U turn would have been a hundred years ago.

Still it is important to differentiate that while the purpose of citizens bearing firearms was to create an effective (well regulated) militia the absence of the militia doesn't "undo" the protection on possession of arms by citizens. The effective militia was the effect of citizens with arms. Citizens with arms doesn't require a militia. That was the point I was making with quote from SCOTUS.

[The Magistrate]

82. If We Are Not Careful, Sergeant, This Could Degenerate Into A 'Gungeon' Wrangle

Something we should probably avoid here.

We agree the amendment contains an individual right, though we might disagree on the degree to which enjoyment of that right might be properly regulated (in the modern sense of the term).

We would seem also to be in agreement that the authors of that amendment had a definite purpose in mind, which purpose has failed in our day.

[Statistical]

84. "the authors of that amendment had a definite purpose in mind, which purpose has failed in our day."

Well I guess we will just have to leave it at that. :)

On Edit:
I don't believe the 2nd unlimited in scope any more than the first amendment is. Just any regulation most certainly doesn't come from the often misinterpreted phrase "well regulated". There is no phrase "well regulated" in the 1st amendment but SCOTUS has routinely upheld that some forms of speech are not protected (fraud, inciting one to violence, disregard for public safety, slander, etc).

[amandabeech]

105. It would have to be a desperation move, no doubt.

Hard to imagine today of course, unless the Chinese landed at Santa Monica.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

15. Man, let's keep the crazy bait in the crazy pen, shall we? -nt

[wtmusic]

17. Oh let them out to run once in awhile

C'mon. Don't be cruel.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. They tear up the toilet paper and ruin the couches. No.

[wtmusic]

38. Gotcha.

:rofl:

[Walk away]

39. I have them all on "Ignore". It took forever!

The amazing thing is that I have an Ignore list of about 200 and none of them ever show up anywhere but the Gun forum or when someone posts a gun post in General Discussion like this one.

[wtmusic]

40. They're like Africanized bees

Challenge A2, and prepare to get swarmed.

[Walk away]

59. All I ever see are little black Ignores. nt

[madinmaryland]

41. I don't know if you have me on ignore,

but this was a first for me, posting a "gun" thread. My intention was to discuss "militias", what they are and who they report to.

[X_Digger]

45. Always an interesting topic. Thanks for posting! n/t

[Walk away]

57. No, in order to get on my "Ignore List"....

you have to write a post salivating about how great it will be when they force cities and states all over America allow everyone to have guns everywhere and all of the time. I see all of the anti-gun posts.

[Statistical]

93. I think it would be great for cities and states all over America to ...

allow everyone to have guns ever and all of the time.

[Walk away]

97. Your wish is my command! Bye! nt

[Statistical]

98. Guess I should have used a sarcasm tag.

Nobody on DU has ever made that claim (well except me now in jest).

[TheWraith]

96. Your ignore list must be pretty short, since no one ever posts that.

Except, of course, in the imaginations of some people who are unable to distinguish that there's a bit of territory between banning all guns and giving kids pistols in kindergarten.

[villager]

78. I know what you mean...

;-)

[TheWraith]

20. The "state militias" of today are called the National Guard.

A group of guys running around in the woods are not a "militia" in any legal sense just because they choose to call themselves such, any more than cults are "churches."

According to US law, there are two classes of militia: the "organized militia," today meaning the National Guard, and the "unorganized militia," meaning all able-bodied males age 17 to 45 years. Theoretically, in an emergency, the "unorganized militia" could be required to go into service (i.e. a draft) but that would only likely happen in the case of massive national crisis such as an invasion.

[slackmaster]

31. The NG accounts for only part of the state militias - the Organized part

There are also Unorganized militias, which consist of basically every able-bodied citizen.

From the California Military and Veterans Code:

MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
SECTION 120-130



120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia--and the unorganized militia.



121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard, the
State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia.



122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.



123. Whenever the Governor deems it necessary, he or she may order
an enrollment to be made by officers designated by the Governor, of
all persons liable to service in the militia. The enrollment shall
include any information that the Governor may require. Three copies
thereof shall be made: one copy shall be filed in the office of the
clerk of the county in which the enrollment is made, and two copies
in the office of the Adjutant General.



124. Enrollment shall be made upon such notice and in such manner
as the Governor may direct. Every person required by such notice to
enroll who fails or refuses so to do is guilty of a misdemeanor.



125. The following persons shall be exempt from military service:
(a) Persons exempt from military service by the laws of the United
States.
(b) Regular or duly ordained ministers of religion.
(c) Students preparing for the ministry in recognized theological
or divinity schools.
(d) Pilots and mariners actually employed in sea service by a
citizen of the United States.
The above persons shall not be exempt from enrollment but shall
file verified claims for exemption from military service in such
forms and manner as the Governor may direct.




126. The Governor shall appoint boards in number and personnel as
will best accomplish the enrollment and such boards shall be vested
with the authority and power of passing upon and determining the
claims of exemption filed under section 125. An appeal to the
Governor may be taken from the decision of the boards by the State or
any person interested in the matter and within the time prescribed
in regulations promulgated by the Governor.



127. When the National Guard and Naval Militia are on duty as a
combined force at any time, the commanding officer of the whole force
shall be designated by the Governor. When two or more officers are
on duty in the same place, camp, field, command or organization, the
Governor may assign the command to any one of such officers without
regard to seniority of rank or branch of service.



128. The unorganized militia may be called for active duty in case
of war, rebellion, insurrection, invasion, tumult, riot, breach of
the peace, public calamity or catastrophe, or other emergency, or
imminent danger thereof, or may be called forth for service under the
Constitution and laws of the United States. Whenever it is necessary
to call out any portion of the unorganized militia, the Governor may
call for and accept as many volunteers as are required for such
service, under regulations provided by this division.



129. Every member of the militia who is ordered out, or who
volunteers or is drafted under the provisions of this division and
who does not appear at the time and place designated by the Governor,
or under his authority, within twenty-four hours from such time, and
who does not produce a sworn certificate of physical disability from
a physician in good standing, is a deserter and shall be dealt with
as prescribed in the Articles of War of the United States, or by this
division.



130. (a) Members of the militia of the state shall not be
discriminated against in enlistments, promotions, or commissions on
any basis listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12940 of the
Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926 and
12926.1 of the Government Code, except as otherwise provided in
Section 12940 of the Government Code.
(b) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of
California that there be equality of treatment and opportunity for
all members of the militia of the state without regard to any basis
listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12940 of the Government Code, as
those bases are defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1 of the
Government Code. This policy shall be put into effect in the militia
by rules and regulations to be issued by the Governor with due regard
to the powers of the federal government that are, or may be,
exercised over all the militia of the state with regard to positions
requiring federal recognition.

[Turbineguy]

21. The guys who came up with that were of course

interested in a good future for the United States. These clowns advocating armed overthrow just use the term "militia" to try to convince themselves they have some legitimacy.

If they were interested in helping, they would join the National Guard.

:think: What about starting a special division in the National Guard only open to stupid white fat fucks who play with guns because they can't get laid?

[DCBob]

22. Clearly the founding founders did not intend for this amendment to be interpreted the way..

the gun rights people do. It was to allow for the states, cities and towns to protect themselves with a "well regulated militia" independent of the federal government... not for a bunch of beer drinking goobers to play army on weekends... IMO.

[TheWraith]

25. Please do some rereading of the constitution.

The state militias were not independent of the federal government. They were, and are, reserve troops under the command of the President. See "National Guard."

[DCBob]

29. Ok... but independent of the US military...

that was the point. right?

[The Magistrate]

37. Not So Much Independent Of As Alternative To, Sir

The great debate of the time among the Founders was the percieved aptness of a standing army to tyrannical control of a country, balanced with the need to protect the country against powerful enemies. A degree of myth concerning the Revolution had already grown up, in which it was believed (quite contrary to fact) that 'citizen soldiers' of the militia had proved more than equal to the regulars of the Crown. Restng defense of the country on militia, therefore, offered a means of holding the standing army of the Federal government to minimal numbers without rendering the country militarily impotent.

[DCBob]

46. You make it sound more like a military strategy than a right of the citizens..

Why even put in the bill of rights if its just a Federal controlled "alternative" to the US military? BTW, no need to call me "sir".. we are all on equal basis here I think.

[The Magistrate]

50. It Was A Military Strategy, Sir

It was taking one side of a debate current in contemporaneous military circles concerning what sort of military body was most apt to defense of a country when all factors, including the fiscal, were take into account, and it was also taking one side of a debate concerning the value and nature of standing military forces. The other side of the latter is well-enough indicated by Mr. Gibbon's characterization of standing armies as the great implement of civilization, because they enable the sovereign to extend his authority to every corner of his domain. This sort of authority the Founders did mostly wish to deny the Federal government.

[DCBob]

51. Would you mind droppng the "sir" crap?

thanks.

[The Magistrate]

54. The Instinct For The Capillary You Demonstrate, Sir, Is Amusing In A Small Way

"Fun is where you find it."

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

70. You Put Me In Mind Of A Favorite Tee-Shirt, Sir....

"I'm never lost. Somebody always tells me where to go."

[TheWraith]

90. Because the militia and the right to bear arms are many things, not just one.

It's the right of civilians to self-defense, and not having to rely on the protection of the government--which as anyone who's had to call the police and they not show up for half an hour can tell you, is subject to limitations even in the best of cases.

It's a check on the power of a standing army, by providing that civilians/volunteers and not professional soldiers or mercenaries would always be involved in the defense of the country, making the armed forces less likely to be subject to abuse. Remember Tiananmen Square? The local Chinese troops refused their orders to attack and disperse the protesters--the Chinese government had to search for days for divisions from hundreds of miles away that would obey those orders.

It's an available "ready reserve" of additional would-be troops in the event of a catastrophe, such as an invasion. The War of 1812 is an example of when this came into play--if the US had been forced to rely on only the standing military forces that we held at the time, we might well have ended up losing to the British and being folded back into the Empire.

Enabling people to serve in their own defense and the defense of the state increased the security of regular people, while lessening the demands on the new state to field a standing army and--consequently--to hold larger amounts of centralized authority.

[madinmaryland]

35. "They were, and are, reserve troops under the command of the President."

That is what I find the most interesting point. Even if Fred's Militia is recognized by the State of Oklahoma, that puts them under the command of the POTUS (President Barack Obama). If they advocate resistance to the US Government, then they are committing an act of treason.

[Statistical]

66. Except their group is not even a militia.

Calling myself a Police Officer doesn't grant me Police authority.
Calling myself Emperor doesn't mean I get to rule for life.

Calling me and my buddies a "militia" doesn't make it so.

I mean if naming something could make it something that really wouldn't work would it. Criminals get to name themselves free and walk out of jail, etc.

Militia are either unorganized (which consists of all able bodied persons in the country) or orgnaized (received a charter from the state).

These "militias" would best be described as "clubs".

[TheWraith]

91. Correct. The end result is what Statistical said.

Fred's "Militia" bears about as much legal resemblance to an actual militia as I do to an actual police officer. That is to say, none. I could call myself a police officer, but I can either have independence from the chain of command, or actual legal authority, not both. The minute that a militia had any legal standing, they would fall under the control of the CIC.

[slackmaster]

33. That's right, and any group of individuals that call themselves a "militia" is not a lawful one

Nor an unlawful one, but they are not a constitutionally recognized militia.

They may be a club or a gang or a bunch of mercenaries, but they are not a militia.

[madinmaryland]

36. That's correct, except possibly the case of Oklahoma which is thinking

of legitimizing Fred's Militia. But if OK does that, then doesn't that put Fred's militia under the command of the POTUS?

:D

[The Magistrate]

47. It Certainly Does, Sir

They could be called up and flown to some remote Afghan valley within hours of the Legislature's action, and would be subject to court martial for desertion in the face of the enemy if they did not report to the duty as ordered....

[Gaedel]

99. It can, but doesn't necessarily have to

The national guard (and the state militia backing the National Guard) MAY be called into federal service and come under the command of POTUS. The federally recognized National Guard is not under command of POTUS unless called to active duty. When the national Guard is not on active duty, it is under the command of the governor of the state. Most states have plans when the National Guard is called to active duty (federalized) to activate a "State Guard" to provide for the state duties (civil defense, riot control, disaster relief, local security) during the absence of the state's National Guard troops on active federal duty. These "State Guard" troops are obtained from the unorganized militia. The governor has the power to call the unorganized militia into state service.

[sandnsea]

26. I say Obama should put 'em to the test

Call them all into service, to Washington, for an inspection.

[Bonhomme Richard]

49. He should call all those militias and send them to Afghanistan. n/t

[sandnsea]

63. Heh, that would scare them back under their rocks n/t

[amandabeech]

106. No, he should take Biden's advice and get almost everyone out of there.

Then there would be a lot fewer dollars borrowed from the Chinese and maybe more to do something with the productive economy here.

I had Biden ahead of Obama in my primary list, and I think that Joe is right about Afghanistan.

Obama shows disdain for and a misunderstanding of the '60s, including Vietnam, for what reason, I do not know.

Joe remembers, and he is right.

For all I know, Joe really understands what happens to empires that attempt to conquer Afghanistan.

They die.

[The Wielding Truth]

32. ...For calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,...

There is nothing here to say that anyone willy-nilly can set up their own militia and have it follow any law but that of the Union. There maybe other mentions of militias in the constitution, but they should be referenced to this Article.



http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;....


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To 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;

[sui generis]

43. The reality-problem with militias

A militia taking up arms against the government, in practice is not a voluntary organization.

Militias require resources, that they would be obligated to claim or keep the federal government from using themselves.

If a militia decided they were going to "occupy" a city, I'm curious exactly WHAT do YOU think a militia would do with able bodied men and women who choose not to fight, or who choose to resist having their homes seized by eminent domain. by a fucking militia.

Yeah the real problem for militias is that they believe they CAN take on the federal government. It's really and truly a joke to believe a bunch of thugs with popguns would stand a chance of doing anything more vital than holing out in a cave and sending manifestos and conducting grocery raids until they got ruby ridged.



reworded for civility - this was cut and pasted from a deleted sub thread.

[madinmaryland]

48. I don't recall what was said, but the point that has been made is that

there are legal militias (The State National Guards), and then those like Fred's Militia that play army games on the weekend.

My issue is what happens when these Fred's Militia is authorized by for example the state of Oklahoma? The only way Fred's Militia could occupy a city, is if they were ordered by the government to occupy the city. Fred's Militia cannot unilaterally decide to occupy a city. That is treason.

[sui generis]

55. I just hope Fred's militia knows that

:P

Just the same, it would be alarming, to say the least, to think of the government ordering Fred's militia to occupy a city . . . I would have to assume it was Fred's government, elected or otherwise installed, and occupied cities would be the very least of our problems, considering who would then be in control of the REAL military.

[madinmaryland]

60. Interesting, I felt that that exact scenario might have played out

during the Bush Admin. I don't have that fear now.

The funny this is, that Fred's Militia probably does not know what they are advocating is Treason. Look what happened to Henry's Militia in Michigan!

[Rex]

44. Actually if militias were left wing liberal run, they would be well regulated.

Since most if not all have right wing nutjobs running them, they are NOT well regulated and just a bunch of punks with guns imo. Besides is militias were lefties, Fox News and CNN would be calling on the Feds to hunt them down as anarchist strongholds.

[Statistical]

53. Calling yourself a militia doesn't make you a militia under the law.

It has no more effect than me calling myself President and trying to pass "Executive" orders.

Militias are comprised of:
Unorganized militia (every able bodied citizen, also called reserve militia)
Orgnized militias (organized and chartered by the state)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29

"Bob Anti-Socialist Militia Club" is neither.

[madinmaryland]

65. Unless the state charters your Militia. For example, if Oklahoma charters

Fred's Militia they have become an organized and recognized militia and are bound by the constitution. They are also under the command of the POTUS.

[Statistical]

71. Correct. I was unaware the group in question received a charter.

The founder had to be smart enough to know rebellion was a posibility they just considered it an acceptable risk.

I mean think about it.... they had JUST finished a successful rebellion. A rebellion not possible without citizens having access to firearms. They codify the Bill of Right to forever protect the Right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.

Regardless of if the group is an official militia or not they put the framework in place that would allow some future rebellion to happen.

Doesn't mean they would condone "Fred's militia" if it turned on the federal govt but I doubt they would be surprised that it could happen. :)

In a rebellion if you win you are a patriot, if you lose you are treasonous (and likely dead).

[madinmaryland]

73. I don't think they have received a charter. I believe there is

a bill working its way through the Ok legislature, which would charter various private militias.

[guitar man]

61. Not sure but

Judging from crowd I'm seeing at the teabagger rallies, I think a modern "well regulted militia" would mean they've all been taking their metamucil. :D

[Walk away]

68. Back when the Constitution was written they were forced to use prunes. nt

[guitar man]

87. tis true

most of them were alive then! :D

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. I think that would be "regularated".

[madinmaryland]

74. +1

:rofl:

[jody]

69. Please read SCOTUS decision D.C. v. Heller, link below, to fin dout what the law says about militia.

http://www.scotusblog.com/archives/07-290_ob.pdf

Please don't be mislead by MSM drumming up readers by characterizing a particular group as a militia. With their approach, most of the groups on SPLC's list are also militias.

[Bitwit1234]

83. OK is going to sanction their militia so Obama would be the

commander in chief there and I think it is hilarious....they did it to themselves.

[madinmaryland]

92. That's the funniest part. Imagine him ordering them over to Afghanistan!

See how the weekend warriors enjoy that!!

[DailyGrind51]

89. "Well regulated" means that they eat a high fiber diet! ;-}

[underpants]

94. The Constitution doesn't provide for a standing Army

it has to be funded every two years

[AnArmyVeteran]

100. Right wing militias are even against the 'WELL REGULATED' part of the 2nd Amendment.

Notice how right wing militias are opposed to any regulations that oversee their legitimacy? They like to quote the 2nd Amendment to justify their existence and their rights to carry weapons, but they disregard the first part of the Amendment that states "Well Regulated".

BTW, since the 2nd Amendment does not define 'arms', that means people should be allowed to own any weapon they choose to own, like surface to air missiles, grenades, bazookas, land mines, battleships, submarines, tanks and even nuclear weapons. During the Founding Father's days all they had were pistols, rifles and canons. So 'arms' to them included all of those weapons. And since one of the biggest arguments right wing proponents of the 2nd Amendment make is that they need 'arms' to protect themselves from the government. Well, how can they do that with mere rifles and handguns? They only way to seriously defend against today's government is with all of the latest weapons, which include all of the weapons I mentioned. How can a right winger expect to defend against a government tank or fighter jet approaching his house? The entire argument made by right wingers is ludicrous. I believe in the 2nd Amendment but not the 'unregulated' militias right wingers seem to lust for.

Ok, where can I go buy a battleship or a surface to air missile system? And do I need to take a government class so I can carry one around?

[Statistical]

101. Well regulated has nothing to do with regulation. Never has and never will.

Of course no right is without limit.

The first amendment doesn't have the words "Well regulated" however many expectation to the first have been found Constitutional.
Prohibitions on fraud, slander, inciting a riot, call to violence, just to name some examples.

Using term "well regulation" = "effective, functional, in order" to indicate that the 2nd is subject to restrictions is a false argument.

[slackmaster]

110. The Moon, being made of the finest Green Cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,

...shall not be infringed.

The prefatory clause is there for explanation. Even if it is no longer true, or was never true, the operative clause would still have the same meaning.

You might argue that a well-regulated militia was once but is no longer necessary for the security of the state. That gives you a reasonable basis for trying to get the Second Amendment repealed.

Good luck with that.

During the Founding Father's days all they had were pistols, rifles and canons.

That is not accurate, and all the blathering about what types of weapons existed when, is just a red herring.

[tburnsten]

103. Well, I'm not sure

the organized militia was Federalized in 1903 by the Dick Act, so that's what the National Guard is, I've never been quite clear on the operation and execution of the unorganized militia.


I do know that the Second Amendment has almost nothing to do with militias, the opening clause was just a little wordplay which inserted a reason why it is both against the government's ability to prohibit weapons as well as against the government's best interests.

[Gaedel]

108. The Dick Act

provided for a "federally recognized" National Guard with the federal government paying and equipping the force. The states are still free to organize their own state guards or organized militias beyond that "recognized" by the Dick Act. Do a Google search on "state guard" and "world war II" to get a long listing of histories of the various state guards organized in WWII by the states after every single "federally recognized" National Guard unit had been ordered to active duty for the duration.

[tburnsten]

111. Now that there is Federal money in it for them

Why would they bother?

I'll check that out though, that is interesting.

[AnArmyVeteran]

107. 2nd Amendment right wingers are usually CLUELESS about the rest of the Constitution & BoR

[quaker bill]

109. A "well regulated militia"

was uniformed, could march properly and perform close order drills. My grandparents had antique posters that advertized exhibitions and parades featuring "well regulated" militias, where they would show off their precision. Washington and a few other generals brought the notion of "well regulated" or "regular forces" to the revolutionary war.