all men, 18 to 45 are members of the militia?

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hawken50

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
311
Location
Western NY
a couple weeks ago i was reading a web page that put down just about every anti gun argument i've ever heard. one anti argument was "the second amendment only applied to state and federal militias." the counter point sited a federal law that says all able bodied men, 18 to 45 are members of the militia. can anyone comfirm or deny this law? sources would be nice. thanks
 
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

10 USC CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

Pertinent portion:

(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.
Click to expand...

It was revised as recently as 1956, so don't let anyone tell you that is some leftover
from the Revolutionary or Civil war periods. It has a modern context and usage.
 
and, on top of that, the original 1934 GCA should have been contested on the grounds of what types of weapons are or are not issued to the milita. Since the milita is US, and we buy whatever we want, then it should have been thrown out. Or, at the very least, it should have shown that what the 'organized'
militia, IE the Nat Guard, is issued, should also be available to the 'unorganized' milita. IE Yes, Virginia, it is OK for me to own this F-15 Strike Eagle!!
 
I had a discussion with a guy about this...he was convinced that it was the state's right to raise a militia.
I said, "No, everyone over the age of 18 is the militia."
He just said, "I am not in the militial."
I just lol'd and ended the convo...it wasn't going anywhere anyway.
Btw, he was from Cali. >____>
 
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
Click to expand...

Pay real close attention to that piece. This CLEARLY states that the militia and National Guard are NOT the same thing.

There is lots of good stuff in this short little statute that really goes against everything the anti's spout.

Between this statute, and the SCOTUS ruling in Miller that the sawed off shotgun Miller had was only illegal because it wasn't a type used by the armed forces, there is a clear message here that
any citizen 17-45 should be able to own an M4. Won't ever come to a fight I'm sure, who would
want to be the test case. But, that IS how the law is written and the law interpreted by the courts.
 
Does that (according to the constitution everyone between the ages of 17 and 45 are part of the militia) mean no one over the age of 45 has the right to own firearms?

The militia part has always bothered me. Suppose, just suppose, the SCOTUS heard a 2A case (and based on the often quoted militia section of the 2A) ruled based soley on the militia section, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Then what?
 
I think it means that everyone between 17 and 45 is expected to fight...but just because you're 46 or 16 you can't.
So I'm pretty sure that it applies to everyone...however, I'm not getting this from the wording, just speculation.
 
magsnubby said:
Does that (according to the constitution everyone between the ages of 17 and 45 are part of the militia) mean no one over the age of 45 has the right to own firearms?

The militia part has always bothered me. Suppose, just suppose, the SCOTUS heard a 2A case (and based on the often quoted militia section of the 2A) ruled based soley on the militia section, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Then what?
Click to expand...

Then you file an age discrimination suit and the left has to come running to support you. Nice huh :evil:
 
And just for grins, if someone trys to tell you the 2nd Amendment is limited to the National Guard, you can point out that the NG didn't exist at the time the Constitution/BoR was written, it didn't come into existence until 1903 (1923??), IIRC - FWIW
 
Fine point here - what/who constitutes the militia is not in the Constitution, but in federal statute, specifically the Militia Act (of 1792, I believe) quoted below, and above.
 
Last edited:
U.S. Code, Title 10, 311
(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.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
 
You've already lost the argument if you've given up so much ground that you're arguing about who is in the militia.

The 2nd Amendment:
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.
Click to expand...
The grammar sounds a little convoluted to modern ears, but if you put other terms into the critical spots, the structure of the sentence becomes more clear.

A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Does anyone want to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes ... ? :D

That's basically what you're doing when you concede that the 2A applies only to militia members.

pax
 
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
emphasis added.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
but not from the second amendment
Click to expand...
http://www.vtgunsmiths.com/arms/ffquote.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back