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
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 can we just put this point to rest once and for all?
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.
[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.”
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.
[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.”
