Nope. Not all weaponry is the same, so the Gov would need to know what each person is best suited for, gun-wise. If we’re talking about short notice troop gathering, then we had best know where to get the people we need for the job at hand. Billy-Bob Bogart has got 40 30-06 rifles and enough ammo to last a month of Sundays, so we send people that know how to use those over to Billy-Bob’s place, now designated “Homefront Base BB-1”.
Yes, the term “militia”, carried over from the original Roman Republic, referred to the body of the public: every able-bodied man who could be called to arms. A good reference contemporary to the Constitution and the Second Amendment is the Federalist Papers #29, which addressed the whole subject. Throughout the entirety of #29 the term Militia is used by the author (Alexander Hamilton) in a context where it’s clearly meant to refer to the people at large, not just a formally instituted government body. To the extent that the latter is implied, it’s because the two were regarded as synonymous: Performing Militia service if called was looked upon as a civic duty, like serving on a jury.
The problem is that the United States has never, in it’s entire history, ever had the sort of universal citizen military training that Switzerland or Israel have. If the United States had faced a continual threat of invasion by British, French or Spanish forces, it might have been otherwise; but as it was except for frontiersmen banding together to fight against Indians, the insularity of the US was it’s first defense. In fact in the Federalist #29 Hamilton spends much of the tract defending against fears that the Federal government might use the authority given in the new Constitution over the militia to regiment society, to keep the populace under a permanent armed-camp mobilization. Hamilton argues in #29 that training everybody would be an impossible expense, and that relying on a “select” militia- what would later be called the “organized” militia- was good enough, with the rest of the populace merely to have guns and ammo and to show up once or twice a year for a “muster” to demonstrate their preparedness (such as it was).
Given the lack of need for a total-manpower mobilization such as would happen in the 20th century, that state governments preferred to rely on small numbers of well-trained and reliable volunteers, and especially that the citizenry itself didn’t want the burden, the practice of requiring the entire male population to be armed and on call was allowed to decay, though the legal theory was kept in place.
And interestingly enough, the Federalist #29 supports the argument that the phrase “well-regulated” didn’t mean tightly controlled by the government- that at the time it was used in a sense more like “well set-up”, “functional”, “in good working order”- for example, that a clock that kept time accurately would have been called “well-regulated”. Hamilton actually uses the phrase “well-regulated militia” in that sense in #29 while specifically arguing against the notion that every man with a gun should be under government authority.
That said, the modern idea that the Militia is a government-controlled exclusive body dates from the Supreme Court decision Presser V. Illinois. Presser appealed his conviction under an Illinois law for organizing a private self-defense force. He tried to raise several Constitutional issues in his appeal, citing the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the clause in Article One Section Ten forbidding states from having state armies. But the SC largely ignored those issues, focusing with surgical narrowness on the technical legality of Presser’s conviction and taking a swipe against incorporating the Bill of Rights. Among other things the court ruled that the states had broad authority to maintain public order, and thus upheld Illinois’ law. Most states today have some similar provision, such as the one in my state of Minnesota:
It appears so. The Militia Acts of 1792 were replaced by the 1903 version which established the National Guard.
“Well regulated militia” has never been defined in statute. It has been mulled over in occasional court decisions, most notably DC v. Heller, wherein “well-regulated” was declared to mean subject to discipline and training. What “the militia” constitutes is a separate concept from the ongoing debate about precisely what the phrase “well regulated militia” means.
Are you an able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45? Yes? Then you’re already a part of it. Congratulations.
By “it”, are you referring to the “unorganized militia” or the “well-regulated militia”?
He’s referring to The Militia of the United States. Period.
Maybe he is, and maybe he isn’t, but unless he is there in the room with you and nodding his head, I’m just going to wait for the answer.
While it’s true that I cannot speak for, or answer instead of ADoors, he’s been in enough GC threads with me (and you) over the years that I can say with 99% confidence that that is what he was referring to.
The OP specifically was referring to a “Well-Regulated Militia”, the the term “Unorganized Militia” was dropped into the conversation, so I asked Airman Doors which of the two he was referring to in his post…then you popped up to tell me that he was referring to a third unused so far term that was a combination of the first two.
No, no, no! He meant the de-regulated militia, not the unorganized militia! Which also has nothing to do with the organized militia, the militia of the USA, the loosely-bound militia or the non-concurrent, quasi-structured American militia.
I could see where veterans could be part of the “well-regulated” portion of the unorganized militia if you look what “well regulated” is held to mean in the courts.
That phrase “well regulated” has led to some misunderstanding over the years. In modern times, we don’t tend to use and understand it the way it was used and understood 200+ years ago.
From this post in this thread (from a different message board): “Well regualted” had nothing to do with being under someones control. It had to do with the person being proficient in what he was doing. I can send you a copy of the manual of arms of the time showing what a “well regulated” soldier or militiaman was expected to do.
From one of my posts in that thread: Although the National Guard is sometimes called the Militia, it is not the same thing. It is instead essentially an auxiliary branch of the U.S. Army. The citizen milita mentioned in the 2nd amendment is not a regular, organized, ongoing body–it is everyday folks equipped to fight tyranny if and when necessary. Note that the amendment does not say that one must be an official member of the militia in order to claim the right to bear arms, it merely mentions that a free state needs the capability to have one–in other words, the citizens must be capable of effectively resisting an oppressive government.
So the “well regulated militia” referred to isn’t some organization you join. You’re potentially a member as a U.S. citizen. The right to bear arms is a necessary, though not necessarily sufficient, condition for said militia to be well regulated (= effective). This militia is essentially dormant, with only a tiny fringe element of the population seeming to believe it needs to be active nowadays.
No; per my previous cite, the organized militia (National Guard, Naval Militia) and the unorganized militia (everybody else) are subsets of the Militia of the United States.
By U.S. law (10USC.311, section a) able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 are de facto members of the militia of the United States. By 10USC.311 section b, those enrolled in the National Guard and Naval Reserves are the organized militia; those who are not enrolled in the National Guard or Naval Militia are the unorganized militia.
Airman Doors simply paraphrased section a of 10USC.311 (he was off by one year).
While the OP used the term “well regulated militia” in his thread-starter, it has been shown already that the original 19th century well-regulated militias (state militias) got organized under the National Guard in 1903.
Since Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, calling the National Guard a militia may be stretching the definition a bit, since the National Guard is a federally funded and controlled military body.
To my knowledge, there is currently no federally recognized and approved civilian defense force of ordinary, everyday people who show up with their own arms and ammo, form units, and train/drill according to any form of recognized or acknowledged military manual-at-arms.
There are self-styled units like that, but the government does not recognize them in any way, shape, or form as a militia of the United States, even if by 10USC.311 they in fact are.
Of course you can join a militia. The place you meet will now be described as a “compound”. References to you will now include your middle name. You can now enjoy playing the game of “Guess who is the spy among us”. And, extra attention will now be applied to digitally monitor all of your communications (the air waves are* free*). The system of control on our freedoms is gaining strength so fast it is mind boggling. Democracy now means that majority rules and the majority believes what they are told. In the words of Ian Anderson, “You can make them feel but you can’t make them think.” As a society we are like frogs in the slowly, watched, coming to a boil kettle.
Oooookay.
When a bunch of rednecks shooting bull around their morning coffee get called a “terrorist conspiracy”, it makes the fringe sound less nutty.
I believe the name rednecks relates the the fact that there are simple people living by simple truths who work hard earning a living from the ground under the sun. Many of their sons have died trying to preserve the freedoms that were bought by great courage and much pain. I don’t wish for revolution, only the preservation of those same freedoms.
They discourage BYOG though.
No. You’ve heard of the Selective Service Act? That’s basically the mechanism by which the unorganized militia is kept track of. It’s not something that you can just get ready in a few days. You’re talking about a vast group of people. And you probably don’t want them bringing their own arms. You want standardization. An army where everyone carries whatever gun they feel like is an army that’s going to suffer from major supply problems.