Able-bodied male US citizens who are 17 years old are legally members of the militia of the United States. Given that the word militia is part of the 2nd amendment, is there any precedent for such minors arguing for rights under that amendment?
I would have to say no, simply because we changed laws and made that 17 into 18.
You can not put a 17 year old into combat now days.
Are you claiming that 10 U.S.C. § 311 is something other than what findlaw indicates that it is? Do you have a cite for when that law was changed?
The US Department of Defence website also agrees that the age is 17.
I am simply saying i do not think a 17 year old counts anymore because we changed the laws that would have let him be a volunteer in a militia, except perhaps post apocalypse or something?
You can enlist at 17, providing you graduate, normally it’s the delayed entry program.
Enlist, graduate, ship out to your duty station, i am not sure if they do summer basic training for those anymore, but lets say you graduated early…
You have to have parents legally signed permission
And you can not be deployed or put into a combat situation until you become 18
You are 17, in this day and age you are still considered a minor, can not vote, can not go into combat, can not drink, can not do anything with out a parents permission basically.
So i do not think the age of 17 counts any more, they’d need adult representation.
I’m not a lawyer so mileage may vary.
I havent found anything since 1864 where they let 17 year olds into combat.
Even in WWI it was 18, and you can not be militia if you are not allowed to fight right?
It’s already legal for someone under 18 to own a long gun in many states:
They can’t buy it, but it can be given to them (by a parent). They can also shoot handguns at a supervised range. So your hypothetical 17 year old would be arguing for being able to own a handgun 1 year earlier than normal and they can already own a long gun. Why would they bother?
We’re seeking consistency where there need not be any. Different statutes enacted for different circumstances can set different limits.
Minimum age to join the military, minimum age to be sent into combat absent gross national emergency, minimum age to register for the draft, minimum age to own a long gun, minimum age to own a pistol, minimum age to use either without adult supervision, etc. Each of these can be different for sound, unsound, or random reasons.
As I understand the OP, he’s pointing out that, by statute, registering for the draft which occurs to males at age 17 constitutes entering “the militia”. Whatever that is.
Since the same word “militia” appears in the 2nd Amendment he’s aguing that it’s potentially possible to equate the two words in the two places as referring to the exact same thing and therefor invalidate any *other *statutory restrictions on guns vs. (draft-registered) 17 yos.
With all that background in mind, the actual question is whether that argument has ever been advanced in public or in court, successfully or otherwise.
*Assuming *I’ve parsed this correctly it’s IMO bollocks. The same words are free to mean different things in different statutes. Which is why so many statutes and regulations start with a glossary of specifically defined terms.
I’m speaking quite a ways beyond my knowledge in one specific area: What is the legislative history and intent behind defining all Selective Service registrees as “the militia” rather than as “the potential call-up pool” or some other bureaucratese? Is that simply historical accident as the words were commonly understood in, say, 1880? Or was there deliberate intent to in, say, 1953 to legislatively buttress the gun owning rights of men, and only men, by saying explicitly that they’re all members of the class of people the 2nd amendment directly addresses?
Heck if I know.
Note as well that the same statute cited by the OP says the militia consists of 17 to 45 year olds. That doesn’t mean if you’re 46 you cease to have 2nd Amendment rights.
If we want to get technical about it, they’re members of the unorganized militia. The Constitution talks about a “well-regulated” militia. That would be the organized militia, i.e, National Guard and Naval Militia.
Also, to be technical, do we interpret the Second Amendment as one continuous right (a militia is necessary, so citizens have the right to arms) or two separate rights (citizens have the right to arms, and also to be part of the militia)?
In the overall scheme of things, though, if we ever get to the point where the government is calling up 17-year olds, I’m pretty sure they’ll be given a gun.
“Well-regulated” didn’t mean then what it means now. The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century after. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order.
You don’t have to register until you’re 18 in the U.S…
Did you look at the links? “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.” The law specifically says that 17-year-old males are part of the militia.
As Tim said, do you have a cite that the law has been changed?
No, he’s pointing out that by statute, 17-year-old males are members of the militia. Nothing mentioned about their being registered for the draft – which doesn’t happen until they’re 18.
The Second Amendment recognizes a personal right of citizens to keep and bear arms (according to Heller and McDonald, let’s not start that again 
) for self defense and also so that the citizenry could appear ready to serve in a militia with personally owned arms.
One could argue that the competing laws (making 17 year olds part of the militia yet not permitting them to own militia weapons) is an unwise regulation which hampers militia functioning, but the 17 year old himself could not argue a violation of a personal right because of his minority.
It’s getting late, but in short, the argument in the OP flows the wrong way:
People (adults) have the right to keep and bear arms so that, in part, we can have a well-regulated militia. Right is recognized to achieve a desired result.
It does not follow that because of an arguable failure to properly provide for a well-regulated militia that certain individuals in the militia, otherwise not permitted to keep and bear arms, must have the right to own them. The desired result does not form the basis of the right.