——”Not sure I like this added restriction,” you said.____
The definition of militia must be legally defined, and it is defined now as anyone 18-45. How do you propose to improve it if not to expand the definition to include those older who might be able to help? You want the word “capable” removed from the language of the bill?
The idea is to provide a way for the court to rule in our favor. The language “capable of acting in concert...” ties the definition to a clear and comprehensible purpose for the militia. I can see why the attorneys put it in. How would you fix it?
If you like your gun, you can keep your gun — Oh wait.....
That said, you got me - I don't have a ready answer it is a tough one. My main concern is the use of "capable" as a qualifier.
The obvious way to fix it is to remove the qualifier and basically say everyone over the age of 18. However, that would almost certainly be challenged and found to be overly-broad and in conflict with federal law etc.
Perhaps there needs to be a clear, concise definition of what is meant by "capable" in this context? Ugh, thus making the law - an expression of a relatively simple idea - even more wordy.
My fear is that at a later date some gun-grabber will come along and place unreasonable criteria on who is deemed "capable" of operating in concert. They could impose unreasonable physical and mental/psychological requirements - "must be able to run a mile in so many minutes, do so many pull ups..." Then turn around and "Oh, you're 55 and can meet all these physical requirements because you work out 3 days a week? That's obsessive behavior, you're deemed mentally unfit to operate in concert..."
You see, I just don't trust the gun grabbers, at all. I don't want to inadvertently give them an opening to further their agenda.