Can we finally just put the whole "Militia Clause" to rest now?

Again and again it is argued that unless you’re in The National or State Guard or an LEO you are not part of “The Militia” and as such the 2nd Amendment does not apply.

Through all of these discussions we come up with quote after quote by many different founders showing that to be false.

Several of us of course have again and again pointed out that you don’t have to be a member of the guards, LEO, or full time military to be a part of “The Militia” and that those would be examples of “The Organized Militia” but that the rest of us capable of bearing arms constitute “The Unorganized Militia”, which is usually poo pooed by the anti gun left.

Looking for something else yesterday I came across the actual statute defining “The Militia”.

10 U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes

prev | next


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—


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


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

So can we just put this point to rest once and for all?


If I am reading that code correctly this is what I required to be a part of the organized or unorganized militia

Be a male (with an exception for females in the NG)
A Citizen
Ages 17-45

Are you sure you want to have the militia, as defined in the constitution, to have those limitations?


Personally I think it’s too narrow but at least it does away with the claim that only those in the guards and services qualify.

What a strange question to ask in response to the posting of the US Code verbatim.

Why? Is it your contention democrats would want to limit a right based on sex and age because that was how it was done historically? Doesn’t sound very progressive.

Sure. Those over 45 are members voluntarily. When do we start issuing guns to 17 year olds?

Don’t forget to make the militia well regulated.

See, “well regulated” doesn’t mean strict oversight. I really means…uh, can somebody tell me how it doesn’t mean what it says?


Educate yourself.

[Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”

[Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”

So yep gun regulation is just fine.


Had I known the US Code regarding the Militia wasn’t common knowledge, I would’ve posted it a long time ago on this new format. That law had been cited many times at the old place.

Not that facts matter when libs have feelings. :man_shrugging:

1 Like

My trigger finger still works. Can I do tower guard? :rofl:

Then when do we start taking guns from non-NG females and Males over 45? They are not a part of the militia.

Democrats want gun regulations, no doubt. My question is why would a conservative want those limitations?

So only men ages 17-45… IF THAT, once we determine who is “regulated”. Huge breakthrough!


That’s a pretty narrow definition-I’m not sure OP wants that strictly adhered to, or a number of gun owners on this forum will no longer qualify :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Incorrect and already addressed.

The poor geriatric boomers will have their guns taken away :frowning_face:

1 Like

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

What a strange response to a legitimate question. Do you have an answer or are you just here to pick nits?