A 2005 Department of Defense report (accessible through the forums below) reported 23 active SDFs; 22 are listed here.
* Alabama State Defense Force [1]
* Alaska State Defense Force [2]
* California State Military Reserve [3]
* Georgia State Defense Force [4]
* Indiana Guard Reserve [5]
* Maryland Defense Force [6]
* Massachusetts State Guard [7]
* Michigan Volunteer Defense Force [8] (ex Michigan Emergency Volunteers, reformed 2004)
* Mississippi State Guard [9]
* New Jersey Naval Militia [10]
* New Mexico State Defense Force [11]
* New York Guard [12]
* Ohio Military Reserve [13]
* Oregon State Defense Force [14]
* Puerto Rico State Guard [15]
* South Carolina State Guard [16]
* Tennessee State Guard [17]
* Texas State Guard [18]
* Vermont State Guard [19]
* Virginia State Defense Force [20]
* Washington State Guard [21]
No, just not the “militia” as the Militia Act of 1903 established. The National Guard is the militia under that law. States can certainly set up their own organizations in addition to their Guard units if they so wish, but there’s no basis other than handwaving for them to have a claim to any special protection under the US Constitution.
Sigh. Okay, what do *you * think was the *basis * for their ruling that sawed-offs do not have their individual ownership uninfringeably protected? Something to do with their not being militia arms, wasn’t it, hmmm? :dubious:
In Miller, the court certainly could have ruled that since Miller was not a member of an organized state militia, the second amendment did not protect his right as an individual to keep or bear any arm…such a ruling would be consistent with the collective right line of wishful thought. That the court instead focused on the suitability of the weapon for militia use supports the individual right interpretation. If Miller, as an individual, had been seen as having no second amendment right to keep and bear, then the suitability of a particular arm for militia purposes is moot. It is more than ironic that the only thing the court made clear in this ruling, it got wrong…short barreled shotguns are excellent in close quarters combat and law enforcement situations.
That’s a “big grin”. It doesn’t necessarily indicate sarcasm or parody. You want the “wink” for that. One could be pro-gun and still joke that his kind outnumber others. The big grin in and of itself wouldn’t tell me that your post was a parody.
I think this is one on which the textualists, original intenters and even many evolutionary people can agree. Even when I was anti-gun ownership I thought it was patently obvious that the second amendment was meant to protect an individual right.
And Bricker, as for your prediction, I agree that if (a) SCOTUS does take the case, then (b) they will uphold the Circuit and (c) they won’t overturn Miller. I’m not sure, however, that a Roberts Court is going to take the case, when it isn’t based on a circuit split.
You’ll also have to agree to disagree with the Miller precedent, which found that the militia clause provides guidance as to which weapons fall within the protected category of “arms”, but did not find within the militia clause a limitation on who may keep and bear arms. (That is, they found a consitutional doctrine to support the notion that, no, the Second Amendment does not mean you can keep nukes and nervegas in the garage.)
If the issue were to arise, I’d guess that the courts would find that the militia clause also provides support for government prohibitions against arms-bearing by persons who are alienated from full participation in the body politic (e.g. convicted felons, the mentally incompetent). However, if you want to effectively abolish civilian firearms ownership, you’re out of luck.
Nah. It’s patently obvious that participating in a militia was meant to be protected, not necessarily personal self-defense, recreational shooting, or hunting. The amendments are models of brevity; clauses don’t appear in them for no reason.
Once again, the courts reject the argument that being part of the adult male population and theoretical membership in a “militia” gives you Second Amendment protection.
With a couple of notable exceptions, the latest being the DC ruling, the courts have uniformly held to the “collective” rights conferred by the Second Amendment.
You too now? Okay, you can claim that guaranteeing the Guard’s right to be armed is something other than a “collective right”, but once again, so what? Yours isn’t the opinion that counts, and neither is mine.
I’m bemused by the number of people here who are religiously sure the SC will reverse *Miller * now simply because, well, because it’s just wrong, dammit. But not even **Bricker ** will apparently offer to bet on that happening.
Pistols have been issued to the military. I don’t really see what the Miller decision has to do with the DC ruling. Sawed off shotguns have not been issued as military arms.
I agree. Many federal circuits have more or less explicitly adopted the collective rights argument; the only federal cicuits that have adopted the individual rights argument are DC and the Fifth Circuit (US v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)). But none of these are controlling precedent except in their circuits.
I assume this post was not an answer to my earlier request for a cite. I was asking for a cite on your claim that the amendment was created to quell fears that the federal government would disband state militias.
Who, exactly, is religiously sure? Certainly not I. In fact, I stated that I have no idea what the result will be, I’d simply like it to be decided. Actually, definitively decided. In spite of your assertions in this thread, as has been amply demonstrated, Miller did not do so and may potentially be reversed, and even that assumes that you think that the ruling was detrimental to you, which it may not have been due to its ambiguities.
For the record, I assess the odds of a ruling in favor of individual rights at 50/50. Imagine that.
I’ve got one for that too. Somewhere. It was somewhere in my long list of court cases that affirm the collective interpretation. It takes a while to find since googling for a specific court case often winds up merely finding another case that references it.
That’s surprising, given that there is so much precedent for the other interpretation. The SC may be a lot more political than it should be, but they do put a lot of stock in precedence.
They put a lot of stock in their own precedent cases – not so much in opinions from below. Indeed, since many cases are granted cert to resolve a conflict in the circuits, it’s almost axiomatic that such a Supreme Court case will trample precedent in at least one circuit below.
Here’s my take on how the current Court’s lineup might act on Parker et al v. DC:
Roberts: affirm
Stevens: reverse; collective right only
Scalia: affirm
Kennedy: affirm; possible concurrence limiting scope
Souter: on the fence (dissent in Muscarello v. US)
Thomas: affirm
Ginsburg: reverse; collective right and DC not covered
Breyer: close call, but reverse; collective right
Alito: affirm
I see four rock-solid affirms; one more reasonably solid affirmance that may end up being a concurrence to lay out a limited scope for the decision (and maybe he’ll end up writing the main decision instead); one true fence-sitter and one fence-sitter that will lean strongly towards reversal, and two solid reversals.
Good call here. But I doubt if they will take the case in the first place. Although I’d bet a buck the ruling would be more or less as you have called it, I’d be willing to bet another they won’t hear it in the first place.
But doesn’t the precedence in the Miller case revolve around the sawed-off shotgun?
A legal weapon that was modified by Miller himself. A gun that was modified by the owner?
What does that have to do with pistols in DC? Pistols are issued to the military and the National Guard (however the guard is defined).
IMHO, the Miller case has nothing to do with this. Sawed off shotguns were not issued as regular military weapons. Though short barreled 18” trench brooms where and still are.
The point of the Miller case deals with sawed off shotguns that were not and are still not arms that are issued to the regular military. It’s not a typical military weapon.
That’s my read on Miller, and it’s a position I’ve held consistently over the years. The court in '39 simply said that it was not within their judicial notice that such weapons were part of ordinary military equipment, and remanded the case.
Now the point I keep coming back to is that Miller is bad precedent, as the case was never argued equally by both parties, Miller being dead and Layton copping a plea (IIRC).
If Miller’s or Layton’s attorney had been present when Miller was argued, then a case might have been made for the short-barreled shotgun as a piece of ordinary military equipment. Such weapons were used routinely by Dragoons and Cavalry in the 19th century, and their effectiveness in close quarters combat has always been fairly acknowledged by the military.
The short-barreled, sawed-off shotgun in Miller’s possession probably has more in common with modern pump-action “trench-brooms,” “door-knockers,” or “House Cleaners” used by SWAT, Special Forces, and regular Infantry deployed in urban areas than the old muzzle-loading musket has with the M-1 Garand.
“wink” for that. One could be pro-gun and still joke that his kind outnumber others. The big grin in and of itself wouldn’t tell me that your post was a parody.