While browsing the great Orange Satan, I saw several posts about the "well regulated militia" phrase of the 2nd Amendment in regard to gun regulation. Some argue that private ownership of firearms should not be allowed under that amendment without a formal orgainzation of a "militia": making the mistake of confusing that phrase with the modern National Guard.
Anyone who has a moderate interest in the Revolutionary Era knows that is incorrect. State militias increased and decreased in importance and funding during the Colonial Period. However, the term "militia" meant ALL male, white, inhabitants of a colony (later state) between the ages of teenager to middle age. They were often required to supply their own firearms. They could be fined if they mustered without the proper weapons and equipment.
George Mason wrote the Virgina Declaration of Rights in 1776 after the Royal Governor abandoned his post. Article 13 states-
"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
So for Revolutionary Virginia, the "well regulated militia" was composed of the body of the people trained to arms. Evey white male in a district was supposed to meet regularly for muster, role and training. During the Revolution they were regularly called up for local, state, or Continental service.
Other states had similar laws. The last few years have seen a a re-empahsis on formalizing a definition of militia in several states. But what about Federal Law?
Tile 10 US Code, Chapt.13 defines the militia for the United States.
"(a) 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.
(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."
So by law, every male (and probably female for current usage) between the ages of 17 and 45 is already a member of the unorganized militia and could be called up in a national emergency. As the laws and regulations are already on the books and part of National Command Structure’s planning; it could be argued- under strict construction- that said militia is "well regulated" and each member of said milita should be armed.
Now is this a reasonable reading?
I doubt it. But could Scalia and others on the Court find such a reading somewhere in the law? The perpetrators of Gore v. Bush could find anything in the law. So I would be very careful trying to drag the current court into the gun debate based on the "well regulated milita" arguement. Best be left to the Congress and Administration.
The public sentiment is for some moderate effort. Probably magazine capacity would be the most effective. Assault weapon bans are feel good measures but those rifles are 80 yr old technologies. Things like pistol grips etc… do not change the function or leathality of such weapons; while limiting the number of rounds per magazine would.
Let’s hope such efforts are successful.
Ridge
