What Is A Militia? Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

http://www.awrm.org/mission.htm, http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2 ^ | 3-23-06

[Jo Nuvark]

Amendment II Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

* ** ***

INFRINGE: vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW

In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#INFRINGE

* ** ***

The 2nd Amendment, starting in the latter half of the 20th century, became an object of much debate. Concerned with rising violence in society, and the role firearms play in that violence, gun control advocates began to read the 2nd Amendment one way. On the other side, firearm enthusiasts saw the attacks on gun ownership as attacks on freedom, and defended their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just as fiercely. If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased.

Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm.

Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes." The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.

Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC 311]).

This is in great contrast to the way things were at the time of adoption of the 2nd Amendment. Many state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies, including powder and bullets.

In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms - the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia). One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.

Perhaps in the 1780's, the rise of a tyrant to a leadership position in the U.S. was a cause for concern. Today, the voters are much too sophisticated to elect a leader whose stated aims would be to suppress freedom or declare martial law. For the leader whose unstated aim it was to seize the nation, the task would be more than daunting - it would be next to impossible. The size and scope of the conspiracy needed, the cooperation of patriots who would see right through such a plan -- it is unfathomable, the stuff of fiction.

The defense of our borders had not been a cause for concern for nearly a century before the subject really came up again around the time to the turn of the millennium in 1999. Concern with border defense again became an issue after September 11, 2001, when a series of terrorist attacks, both in the form of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings and anthrax-laced mail, made people realize that we do have enemies that wish to invade our nation, though not on the scale of an army. But while each state has its National Guard it can call up to guard the borders, the coordination needed is much more on a national scale, and special units of the regular army or border patrol are better suited for such duty than the Guard.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html#context

* ** ***

What is the militia?

Go look in the mirror and you will have the answer. The militia, contrary to the insistence of the media, is not an "anti-government hate group." It is not a group of uneducated, backwoods, inbred, hicks who date their sisters. It is not made up of malcontents bent on destroying America. Militiamen are not misfits, they are not psychologically damaged mental defectives.

http://www.awrm.org/mission.htm

[garbageseeker]

The Framers understood the term "well regulated militia" to apply to all able bodied men and they understood the importance of keeping the citizens armed. The Revolutionary war began when King George ordered his troops to Lexington and Concord to seize the armories there.I would like to point out the federal Militia Act of 1792, required that every "free able bodied white male citizen" to provide himself with a good "musket or firelock."

[tet68]

It had been my opinion for some time that, "A free state" does not refer to a geographical entity but to a "state of
freedom", then the rest becomes clear.

The truely great thing about our nation is that the founders
wrote for the individual to read and understand, and not
for a bevy of lawyers to interpret.

Happy Fourth everyone!