TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:And, just to throw one more dash into the mix, I have always wondered if maybe the right to keep and bear arms was protected so that we the people could regulate the militia.

That is the way I interpret the 2nd. We need the militia to defend the state and we, the people, have the right to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves against said militia if the situation arose.

JJVP wrote:

jimlongley wrote:And, just to throw one more dash into the mix, I have always wondered if maybe the right to keep and bear arms was protected so that we the people could regulate the militia.

That is the way I interpret the 2nd. We need the militia to defend the state and we, the people, have the right to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves against said militia if the situation arose.

yeah. pretty much ... I'm glad "the people" group got enlarged (Eventually Indians and women became people too, instead of 3/5 of a person or "property", and they voted, bought guns and now women have the right to talk ... err vote ... err shoot)
I better run n hide now ...

jimlongley wrote:And, just to throw one more dash into the mix, I have always wondered if maybe the right to keep and bear arms was protected so that we the people could regulate the militia.

When anti-second amendment folks say "Oh that only applies to the militia. No one else is permitted to carry guns." I reply with "Oh ok...so you're fine with me joining a militia?" That doesn't usually go over to well with them, lol.

Dunno about being so we could regulate the militia, but like Suzanna Hupp says, it is about protecting ourselves from all of them (politicians).

Review Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, specifically who put them down and how.

Having every man interpret the law and enforce his interpretation didn't work out all that well.

- Jim

DocV wrote:US Code
Title 10, subtitle A, Part I> Chapter 13, Section 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.

According to US law, we are all the militia, at least I am for another few years (though there could be an argument made about my being "able bodied").

Kythas wrote:

DocV wrote:US Code
Title 10, subtitle A, Part I> Chapter 13, Section 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.

According to US law, we are all the militia, at least I am for another few years (though there could be an argument made about my being "able bodied").

IMO, that definition does not apply. There was no National Guard nor a Naval Militia when the 2nd amendment was ratified. A lot of people claim that the 2nd only applies to the National Guard (organized militia). They are wrong.

RPB wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I was under the impression that the Founding Fathers tried to avoid a National standing-army and hoped to rely exclusively on the Militias of the various colonies (states).

In my mind, the Militia IS the People, and vice versa.

If the militia/soldiers = the People
Then that would mean the Soldiers who want to force you to quarter them are the people/property owners

Militia does not equal Soldier. Soldier = Regular "Army" troops (conscripted/enlisted/etc.)

JJVP wrote:

Kythas wrote:

DocV wrote:US Code
Title 10, subtitle A, Part I> Chapter 13, Section 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.

According to US law, we are all the militia, at least I am for another few years (though there could be an argument made about my being "able bodied").

IMO, that definition does not apply. There was no National Guard nor a Naval Militia when the 2nd amendment was ratified. A lot of people claim that the 2nd only applies to the National Guard (organized militia). They are wrong.

You can have your opinion, but the law is the law. Yes, there was no National Guard or Naval Militia when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, but that doesn't change the fact that, according to Federal law, all able bodied males between 17-45 are members of the militia.

This would seem, to me, to be an argument in favor of the 2nd Amendment. After all, if everyone is in the militia, then everyone should have a gun.

I have enjoyed reading this discussion but IMHO, we are reading too much into it instead of simply taking it for what it actually says. This is a simple why and what.

This is why, which ultimately makes no difference.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

What matters is this, the what.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This very simple statements proclaims that the people already have the right to keep and bear arms and the government shall not infring upon that right. The second ammendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. It is meant to protect it.

What it does not say is that it doesn't apply to individuals, that it only applies in the home, or it only applies to certain arms. Any form of gun control infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms with the one exception being as it relates to those who have forfieted some of their rights (criminals).

SRH78 wrote:I have enjoyed reading this discussion but IMHO, we are reading too much into it instead of simply taking it for what it actually says. This is a simple why and what.

This is why, which ultimately makes no difference.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

What matters is this, the what.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This very simple statements proclaims that the people already have the right to keep and bear arms and the government shall not infring upon that right. The second ammendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. It is meant to protect it.

What it does not say is that it doesn't apply to individuals, that it only applies in the home, or it only applies to certain arms. Any form of gun control infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms with the one exception being as it relates to those who have forfieted some of their rights (criminals).

Ultimately I agree. Just enjoyable mental gymnastics. Too, good to know how to answer liberal would-be-lawyers on this stuff.

DocV wrote:US Code
Title 10, subtitle A, Part I> Chapter 13, Section 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.

OK, this portion of the law (not of the Constitution - it only had 7 articles and then the original amendments) has been brought up a couple of times. My 1st question is "When was this part of the law enacted?". I don't think it was before 3 June 1916 - at least I can't find any earlier date referring to that article of law from the US Code repository operated by the House of Representatives ( http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ).

So, my 2nd question is - does that mean that there wasn't a statutory definition of "militia" before then? What was the common definition used back in the Revolutionary Days? In the Civil War years? Any of you historians know?

BTW - this is fascinating stuff, listening (reading) to all of your opinions and family history.

I may not agree with everyone's opinion on this forum, but you can't dispute the fact that there are some heavy-thinking members here!

A tomato is a vegetable legally, but it's a fruit really.... it "legally" changed definitions

the term militia has changed over the years, as pointed out abve not the National Guard/Navy etc at the time the term was used in the constitution, but changed legally later.

And it's correct that Militia does not equal Soldier exactly (but see footnote) as it encompassed what we'd call Police/Sheriffs/Constables/Cavalry/Chuck Conners as The Rifleman when deputized by Micah the Marshall, etc, but the concept is *armed governing persons* ...just as all in the group considered "People" (at that time) were not all "Property Owners" some "People" were indentured servants.... but the parallel principles of the Second and Third are the distinction between Govt and citizens (terms used loosely here) and as Dr. Hupp said, to protect the people/citizens/property owners/ voters from the Governors is the commonality of the two (and of the other rights such as Govt not infringing on individuals' speech/religion etc)

However, if the word militia gets re-defined too much, just join http://www.arizonastatemilitia.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.arizonastatemilitia.com/asso ... itias.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I was showing historical, rather than current ... legal or dictionary definitions and rationale.
-----------

Footnote:
Militia:
Etymology
Militia derives from Latin roots:

miles /miːles/ : soldier[5]
-itia /iːtia/ : a state, activity, quality or condition of being[6][7]
militia /mil:iːtia/: Military service[5]

The word militia dates back to at least 1590 when it was recorded in a book by Sir John Smythe, Certain Discourses Military with the meanings: a military force; a body of soldiers and military affairs; a body of military discipline[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#Etymology" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
================

So it wasn't people having a right to bear arms because they belong to a militia, it was people have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from a militia, which was a necessary evil.
That's the whole point of Hupp's Statement "to protect us from you guys (the Govt) ... She just lives up the road and I see her husband every so often, and I doubt I misunderstood what she meant.... though I have misunderstood women in the past

---------------

My family always sticks their noses into government

2009-2010

in part:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/? ... =TOC_64589&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Committee Reports
111th Congress (2009-2010)
House Report 111-104

(6) in 1677, Nansemond Indians were signatories to the Treaty of 1677 with the King of England;
(10) in 1727, Norfolk County granted William Bass and his kinsmen the `Indian privileges' of clearing swamp land and bearing arms (which privileges were forbidden to other nonwhites) because of their Nansemond ancestry, which meant that Bass and his kinsmen were original inhabitants of that land;

(11) in 1742, Norfolk County issued a certificate of Nansemond descent to William Bass;

William was my dad's middle name, his dad was Willis, descended from Willis and William ...Samuel who came from Nathaniel (some skipped but ...)...our family has kept the John/Samuel/Willis/William/Henry names (also used by the Adamses) forever back to Nathaniel (we only in the last 75 years or so admitted about the Indian, it used to be whispered more than told ...we don't talk about France, Nathaniel was married in England so we say we came to US from England (Maybe some day we'll talk about France, if they shape up lol)

So, having the right to bear arms prior to the United States existing, we didn't want to give it up ... that's where our Adams branch of the family helped out ... John, Samuel etc.

Kythas wrote:

JJVP wrote:

Kythas wrote:

DocV wrote:US Code
Title 10, subtitle A, Part I> Chapter 13, Section 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.

According to US law, we are all the militia, at least I am for another few years (though there could be an argument made about my being "able bodied").

IMO, that definition does not apply. There was no National Guard nor a Naval Militia when the 2nd amendment was ratified. A lot of people claim that the 2nd only applies to the National Guard (organized militia). They are wrong.

You can have your opinion, but the law is the law. Yes, there was no National Guard or Naval Militia when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, but that doesn't change the fact that, according to Federal law, all able bodied males between 17-45 are members of the militia.

This would seem, to me, to be an argument in favor of the 2nd Amendment. After all, if everyone is in the militia, then everyone should have a gun.

The definition of Militia according to Federal law is immaterial in relation to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is about the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". It has nothing to do with only being able to "keep and bear arms" only if you are a member of the militia. Federal law could change the definition of militia tomorrow to "2-3 year old dogs who have been neutered" and that would not eliminate the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Militia and people are two separate entities in the 2nd amendment. That was affirmed by the SCOTUS on the Heller and McDonalds ruling. The 2nd amendment is an individual right.

n5wd wrote:What was the common definition [of militia] used back in the Revolutionary Days?

It was nearly the same definition as in the federal law for able-bodied men age 17 to 45.

In various times and places they added "free" or "white" to the definition.

The quotation from George Mason is quite well known:

Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers.

You can also find plenty of information about how various colonial and state governments in the 18th century required every male householder to own a firearm and ammunition and to turn out for muster periodically.

This bears repeating: No one in the Revolutionary period or the early 19th century had any notion of gun control or of a government-sanctioned militia (like the National Guard) having a monopoly on weapons. That thinking is a creation of Reconstruction and later.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

n5wd wrote:What was the common definition [of militia] used back in the Revolutionary Days?

It was nearly the same definition as in the federal law for able-bodied men age 17 to 45.

In various times and places they added "free" or "white" to the definition.

The quotation from George Mason is quite well known:

Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers.

You can also find plenty of information about how various colonial and state governments in the 18th century required every male householder to own a firearm and ammunition and to turn out for muster periodically.

This bears repeating: No one in the Revolutionary period or the early 19th century had any notion of gun control or of a government-sanctioned militia (like the National Guard) having a monopoly on weapons. That thinking is a creation of Reconstruction and later.

- Jim

Except us Indians ... who obtained the right to bear arms (not all Indians could) before we wrote a Constitution ... see my edited post above.