A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us...pagewanted=all


Nice to see someone with a brain working on this.

[Aliantha]

As opposed to the opponents who don't have brains?

[Ibby]

There's plenty of brainless ones on both sides of the issue.

[Aliantha]

Agreed

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Second Amendment says, “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.”

Reading this for the umpteen thousandth time I've have a new thought.

The bill of rights was written to convince the people they could live with this government without being afraid of it.... it would not oppress them. Are they saying, Hey, the states must have a government force (militia) for security, but you can have guns too, so you don't have to fear that force?

I never thought of it that way before.

[Aliantha]

So the people might be scared of the people? Is that what you mean?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'm not scared of the people, and remember this was written in the 1700s.

[Aliantha]

Yes, but I'm just trying to understand what your new thought was. Was it so that the people could defend themselves from the militia (being made up of the people) if they felt the need to?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, exactly. They didn't trust any authority and the bill of rights was to assuage those fears. Militia is made up of some of the people

By the way, 2005, US population = 296,410,404, victims of all violent crime = 1,390,695. that's why I'm not scared.

[Aliantha]

That's a lot of people. We only have about 20 000 000 in our whole country.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's the 2005 number it's well over 300,000,000 now.
20,000,000? We have almost that many illegals.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, a bit over half that many, at circa 11,000,000.

Aliantha, the history of the capital-M Militia's legal status in the States, through several Federal-level acts about it, pretty much is as the George Mason (a Founding Father) set it forth: that the militia is the whole of the people, less certain officers. The prominent exceptions being judiciary, certain federal employees like customs officers, and serving members of the armed forces IIRC. And after leaving these posts or positions, the persons revert to being militia. Current US law describes such persons as the Unorganized Militia (USC Title 10, Sec's 310-311). Militia Acts specifically refer to the male population, but present law would likely be read to cover female volunteers also, should any legal question arise. It does not contain any coercive feature either; activity in the unorganized militia at any rate is a volunteer proposition, and I think largely it has always been, though reference to conscripting militia personnel for national service may be found. This seems to me to move the conscripts in question from the militia to the Regular Army.

The National Guard is not quite legally the same as the Unorganized Militia, despite being sometimes spoken of as militia, having its legal origin in the Federal power to raise armies.

A quote:

A. Militia Act of 1792

Sec. 1. Be it enacted . . . That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . . That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. . . .

Sec. 2. [Exempting the Vice President, federal judicial and executive officers, congressmen and congressional officers, custom-house officers and clerks, post-officers and postal stage drivers, ferrymen on post roads, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners, and people exempted under the laws of their states.] 23

B. The currently effective Militia Act

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . 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.

(b) The classes of the militia are --

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Drawn from here.

[Aliantha]

Thanks UG.

Looking at B. (a), I wonder if it could be argued that because the wording states 'males' women have no right to be 'armed' under that law.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, it means they can't serve in the militia, that's all.

[Aliantha]

But isn't the basis of pro gun lobyists' argument that they need to be armed BECAUSE they need to provide for a militia?