What, exactly, is "an armed body of men"? (state constitutions).

[pkbites]

Most (not all) states have right to bear arms clauses in the state constitutions.

Two states (Arizona and Washington) have identical wording in their state constitutions:

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."

What, exactly, is “an armed body of men”? Has it been defined anywhere? It almost sounds like a factory wouldn’t be allowed to have armed guards on site. But those clauses are old (1889 and 1912). So what did that mean back then? What does it mean now?

[ASL_v2.0]

My sense is it’s to prohibit private armies and non-state controlled militias (which most so-called militias are now, effectively: random groups of privately organized, armed thugs, sovereign citizens, and the like).

But, since this is GQ and not IMHO, I went ahead and found this as a cite from Georgetown Law (PDF warning):

Prohibiting Private Armies at Public Rallies: A Catalogue of Relevant State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

For Washington, for instance, it cites a statute that seems to speak to, even if not invoking the exact same words, the question of what it’s Constitution means by “an armed body of men.”

Wash. Rev. Code § 38.40.120. Authorized military organizations
No organized body other than the recognized militia organizations of this state, armed forces of the United States, students of educational institutions where military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction or bona fide veterans organizations shall associate themselves together as a military company or organize or parade in public with firearms: PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent authorized parades by the organized militia of another state or armed forces of foreign countries. Any person participating in any such unauthorized organization shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

[mjmlabs]

This site quotes from Lenin:

Concretely, the mechanisms by which the state maintains ‘order’ are the “armed bodies of men” Lenin writes about in State and Revolution, paraphrasing Engels. These are things like the courts, the prisons, the police and the army. In other words, despite appearances, state power does not stand neutral above society, but is a weapon in the hands of the class that is able to maintain an armed body of men. It is a tool of the possessing class for use against the non-possessing class.

I’d be really surprised if those two states were cribbing from Marxism, but the general thrust may pertain: no private, company prisons; no private, company armies; no private, company police forces nor private, company courts enforcing private, company law. Don’t try to cut in on the state’s powers, IOW. Also no vigilante posses nor lynch mobs, presumably.

[Lord_Feldon]

@pkbites

It almost sounds like a factory wouldn’t be allowed to have armed guards on site.

It doesn’t forbid the factory from having anything. It just says that if you or your corporation want to retain an armed body of men, you have to look elsewhere for the law on that topic. It might be legal, it might not, but if it’s not, you can’t challenge that based on the state constitution’s protection of the right to bear arms.

[UDS]

@Lord_Feldon

It doesn’t forbid the factory from doing anything. It just says that if you or your corporation want to retain an armed body of men, you have to look elsewhere for the law on that topic. It might be legal, it might not, but if it’s not, you can’t challenge that based on the state constitution’s protection of the right to bear arms.

This. I suspect the intention is to make it clear that the constitutional right to bear arms doesn’t limit the power of the state to limit, regulate, licence, etc private security firms that provide armed guards.

[mjmlabs]

@Lord_Feldon

It doesn’t forbid the factory from having anything. It just says that if you or your corporation want to retain an armed body of men, you have to look elsewhere for the law on that topic. It might be legal, it might not, but if it’s not, you can’t challenge that based on the state constitution’s protection of the right to bear arms.

@UDS

This. I suspect the intention is to make it clear that the constitutional right to bear arms doesn’t limit the power of the state to limit, regulate, licence, etc private security firms that provide armed guards.

Agreed. :smack: I spent too much time trying to get the definition of the quoted noun phrase, and not enough parsing the entire clause. D’OH.