Taking Aim at D.C.’s Gun Law

Newsweek ^ | July 30, 2007 - | Daren Briscoe

[Trailerpark Badass]

Look at the gangs that are out of control.

I would guess that many members of such "gangs" are felons, whose possession of such guns is already a crime.

As has been stated ad nauseam, gun laws only affect law abiding gun owners. Criminals ignore them.

[M1Tanker]

Short argument: Everyone was eligible to be part of the militia.

You probably already know this, but I wanted to insert the section of the US Code that backs you up:

TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, Section 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.

Pretty much means just about everyone in the USA is either part of the militia or “retired” from it. If the person has prior military service, the age is extended to 64. With retirement ages increasing, and in time of need, I am sure the upper age range would be waiverable.

[FortWorthPatriot]

"Short argument: Everyone was eligible to be part of the militia."

I've often wondered why gun grabbers haven't tried using the language of the Militia Act against us. According to § 311 of Title 10, the people eligible for the Militia of the United States are "able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and ... under 45 years of age." There are exemptions listed in § 313 of Title 32, of course but they address enlistments and appointments into the National Guard.

If you apply the letter of the law to it, strictly speaking the unorganized militia can be comprised of only males age 17 to 45. Gun grabbers could be able to argue that those of us males 45 years or older (including yours truly) as well as women do not belong to the unorganized militia, so therefore are not eligible to keep and bear arms. (I know, it's ridiculous but I wouldn't put it past them to try this angle)

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 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.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it's always worried me about the "under 45 years of age" clause. I am interested in getting everyone else's opinion on this.

[Joe Brower]

[Dead Corpse]

Actually, once the BoR was ratified, Art 6 para 2 became effective. Read Mason's "Objections to the Constitution".

"There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law."

His reasons for wanting a declaration of common Rights for all US citizens is as valid now as it was then. In fact, more so seeing as how the States and the FedGov both seem bent on destroying our Republic and our liberties.

[Lazamataz]

The only problem I have, and let me say, I hate gun control, but.......have you ever been to DC? Would you want those people to be carrying around guns?

(Pssssst.)

(I have a little secret.)

(I'm gonna tell you.)

 

 

 

(They already are.)

[stephenjohnbanker]

“I would NEVER obey a law that made it illegal for me to defend myself. It violates a right that pre-existed the law itself and which is essential to repelling aggression against one’s person. Whatever the merit of banning guns might be, NO government has the right to forbid ANY ONE from defending their life.”

BUMP

[beltfed308]

Interesting background information. Thanks for sharing.

FRegards

[3RDDAN]

Title 10 should be required reading (study) in every high school in the U.S.A.

[2nd amendment mama]

Are you saying that the Constitution and the BOR doesn’t apply to DC?

[M1Tanker]

Retired police are still allowed to carry/keep arms so the legal precedence exists on that level to resist forfeiture. Also, the Constitution did not specify age or gender when referring to “People” and the use of “People” in the Constitution is already legally determined to include all people of every age.

In addition, the equal rights laws prohibit discrimination based on gender and color so pretty much everyone is included in the responsibilities of the unorganized militia. Also, the Militia Act only defines a period of potential service to the Nation, not the keeping and bearing of arms. It takes a tool (the 2nd Amendment), provided by the Constitution, and uses it in the defense of the country by the People.

But that is my dime-store legal opinion. If you add $1, you can buy a lottery ticket with it.

[Smokin' Joe]

I believe that definition significantly post-dates the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

The 'National Guard' was a long way off, temporally.

[M1Tanker]

Title 10 should be required reading (study) in every high school in the U.S.A

Unfortunatly, it does not seem to be required reading anywhere....

[Old Student]

“The only problem I have, and let me say, I hate gun control, but.......have you ever been to DC? Would you want those people to be carrying around guns? Tough questions but look at Los Angeles and Detroit. “

I’ve visited DC a couple of times, and I grew up near LA. Widespread carry of firearms would be the best thing that could happen to either place. IMHO.

Gangbangers want respect. They want it, they have to give it, if everyone carries. Otherwise, they become an endangered species, as was shown repeatedly in the Old West.

[neverdem]

If the person has prior military service, the age is extended to 64.

Where did you find that exception?

[tracer]

It’ll work best against gang-bangers if folks realize that “scope” isn’t just the name of a mouthwash....

[DuncanWaring]

Are you saying that the Constitution and the BOR doesn’t apply to DC?

That's the essence of the "Dissent" in Parker.

Thus, in DC, women aren't allowed to vote and it's legal for one man to own another as property.

[Big Mack]

As a freeper wrote two weeks ago, and I paraphrase,”The modern question of whether the right is collective or individual is without meaning, because the 2nd was not written for citizens, but written for government- that is written directly to government, like most of the Constitution is.

[Jason_b]

What is the BOR? Does it bestow rights? No. It should be called a bill of restrictions because it restricts what congress can legislate for the states and state citizens. If congress got the notion to implement gun control against Virginia citizens, the BOR stops that. In that sense the BOR does apply to DC and the government that lives there, by restricting it.

The Constitution certainly applies to DC,...helped create it! And defined the government that would run it!

Congress is far more free to do with DC and those under its jurisdiction (which is everyone now) than people realize. It used to be just those born in DC and territories. But since it got into the citizenship business we all bought in and now it is all of us. I'm saying you just can't find anyone closely enough connected to a real State by Citizenship to that State to be able to claim its protections from what DC wills. Read the Constitution of your State sometime. That's where your rights are guaranteed. The federal zone has spread everywhere and everyone is under it.

When you have some time, lots of it, like a rainy day, read my about page. It's too long. Sorry for that.

[ninenot]

I like what Cato does, too...but they ARE Libertarian-inclined (or openly so,) which means that they are not writing Holy Writ all the time.

So what? Better that Cato joins with Heritage, AEI, etc., than against ‘em!