How many of us are REALLY in the Militia?

[ID_shooting]

This recent thread got me thinking.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=246639

We all would love for the courts to follow the strict wording of the 2ndA, We would also like them to do the same with the various State Constitutions as well, but I am currious as to how far we would like it to go.

One thing I bring up, nearly all Militia deffinitions, both fed and state level, read somthing like "All able-bodied males..." I have to think that since I was realesed from the US Army under disability and continue to draw a monthly VA benefit, I would not be considered an "able-bodied" person and therefore not eligable to be in my State Militia much less argue my right to own a "militia-class" rifle.

Now, the picture of the subject in the above thread shows him to be quite "rolly polly" and I doubt he could pass an Air Force PT test much less an Army or USMC one. Could that then negate his claim that he is a member of the Militia?

To take it one step further, since the 2ndA says nothing about hunting or target shooting, could it be construed, on some level, that a person having no Militia eligability does not have a right to firearm ownership?

How about it, are you ready to take a PT test before you could buy a firearm?

Just playing Devil's advocte here and opening a debate. Please hold the flames back and discuss in a civil manner.

 

[crazed_ss]

Also... what about women?

 

[BobTheTomato]

Don't forget, the meaning of able bodied will change based on what needs are. To me able bodied means - can pull trigger.

 

[Biker]

And those of us over 45 years of age? Good question, ID.

Biker

 

[Sistema1927]

Even though most militia statutes state something to the effect of "all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45" I don't think that you can find a single instance in US history where former militia members had to stack arms as soon as they turned 46! (At least I hope not, since I celebrated that birthday several years ago.)

History will also show numerous instances of young men as young as 12 or 13, as well as the elderly, performing "militia" duties. Those between 17 and 45 were required to serve in the militia (certain exemptions granted to Quakers and other pacifists), but others outside that age range, while not required, were expected to serve.

Note that it is due to the fact that the militia needs to be armed that all of the people are to be armed.

 

[gdvan01]

And those of us over 45 years of age?

Amen, brother!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

While the unorganized militia is more narrowly defined, I can find plenty of instances in history (WWII being a prime example) where older men and disabled men served in militias on both sides in order to free up fighting age males for service elsewhere. Just because the unorganized militia has been narrowly defined currently doesn't mean it will always be.

Beyond that, you can argue that the Ninth Amendment encompasses a right to an effective means of self defense that includes possession of firearms. It would be a tough sell in the current climate; but not an unreasonable one.

 

[hugh damright]

since the 2ndA says nothing about hunting or target shooting, could it be construed, on some level, that a person having no Militia eligability does not have a right to firearm ownership?

Perhaps it could be construed that a person having no militia eligibilty has no federally protected RKBA ... but there is a huge difference between not having federal protection of a right and not having a right.

you can argue that the Ninth Amendment encompasses a right to an effective means of self defense that includes possession of firearms.

I believe it turns the Ninth against itself to construe it to empower the US to protect our unenumerated rights.

 

[Caimlas]

"able bodied" does not imply "military PT exam capable". It means exactly that: able bodied. The militia has little to nothing to do with a formal military force and its upkeep.

If you can walk 5 miles in a day and carry a pack of your own supplies, I'd say you qualify as 'militia capable' in the sense of infantry. But, in today's modern warfare techniques, I'd say the definition is even broader to those who can perform specialist tasks, as today's tactics require specialists. Snipers, recon, spies, armorers, etc. would, in my mind, constitute 'militia work' in which case, if you can perform the task, you qualify. Maybe you do it slower than a 20-something stag buck, but you still get it done.

Now, if you're 300lb and breath heavily after walking up a flight of stairs, I'm thinking you'd be pretty damn useless for all but sitting behind a keyboard (if you've got core competency in that area). Just the same, I see no reason why the person shouldn't be allowed a gun; they're a militia auxiliary.

National defense starts with personal defense and local policing. If you can't defend yourself or your community, then you're SOL on the national level. Individual, universal (or high-density) arm posession and use - and not just by 'military fit men' - is necessary for this to occur.

You've got to realize that the wording of the 2nd Amendment wasn't to limit the citizenry in any manner. If you could fire a rifle (musket), you were a part of the team; if you couldn't, it was likely because you were a true cripple, or retarded.

 

[AndyC]

I've no time for overweight, camo-clad, I'm-dreaming-of-TEOTWAWKI wannabes - no offence to those who are

 

[tank mechanic]

It was always explained to me that able body meant being able to pull a trigger. If you were physically fit you were fighting in front and if you were not, you were on the hilltops looking through a scope on a hunting rifle.

 

[Jerry Morris]

AndyC wrote:
I've no time for overweight, camo-clad, I'm-dreaming-of-TEOTWAWKI wannabes - no offence to those who are

Then you just wasted some time, that you said you did not have.

Jerry

 

[CornCod]

When I reached the age of 45 two years ago, I did not have a retirement ceremony from the Arkansas State Militia. Our state constitution is quite clear on the matter that I did serve. No thank you letter from the governor either. There is an old saying "some serve, who only stand and wait." Well, I trained by keeping myself as fit as possible and regular target practice.

How ungrateful!

 

[DogBonz]

I think that

In times of war, where there were enemy forces on US soil, that it means anyone who is *willing* to fight. In WWII, men and women of all ages and all levels of “able bodiedness” in Europe and particularly, in Russia, fought the Nazi’s. I think that when it gets to that point, and every rifle is needed, it doesn’t matter the age or sex of the person pulling the trigger.

 

[AndyC]

Then you just wasted some time, that you said you did not have.

Darn - nobody was supposed to notice the illogic inherent in my statement

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Home Guard

Some of you may remember a British comedy, "Dad's Army," that parodied the British Home Guard. These were older gents who couldn't muster to the front for reasons of age or infirmity.

Very funny. Comical. Always worth a laugh.

I met a couple when I was over there (USAF, '69-'72). Guys in their 70s and 80s. They were quite willing -- and calmly so -- to give it up in defense of their nation. Very matter-of-fact. Like talking about the weather.

Perhaps I'll have that conversation in 20 years with some punk kid fresh out of Basic or Tech School, and tell him that, had it ever been necessary, I would have put my overweight, arthritic butt on the line, just because the nation's worth it.

Yeah. I'm still in the militia, whether the militia knows it or even cares.

----

p.s. Any of you punk kids who thinks he can out-hike me is welcome to try. I may be old, but I ain't THAT old.

 

[falling leaves]

The wording of the 2A lists the well regulated militia as the desired result of ensuring that all the people be armed. I read "regulated" as organized, skilled, and equiped to do the job, which may not be the most widely accepted definition, but go with it for the sake of the argument. This leads me to look at the next part of the sentence ("...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.") as the instrument ensuring we will have the three elements needed for a 'well regulated' militia to exist.

This says to me that one of the chief aims of the second amendment is that the population at large ("the people") have the skill at arms they will need to perform effectively in their role in the militia. So where do they get this skill? The answer is again "the people". Those of us with these skills need to pass them along to others, and need to have the tools available to do so. The point I am trying to make is that even if an individual is not a member of the official militia for whatever reason, they may still play a vital role in maintaining the effectiveness of that militia through training those that are, and therefore need the tools to perform that training.

A classic example would be a crusty old Granpa taking his 12 year old grandson out to the range and showing him the finer points of marksmanship. Neither is technically an able bodied male of the appropriate age and so neither is a member of the official militia. However, the skills the boy learns then are vital to his future militia service.

 

[dave_pro2a]

Well, now we have all this precedent set against discrimination.

So I think that women could sue to be included. Otherwise it's sexist.

Old geezers could sue to be included. Otherwise it's agiest.

The disabled could sue to be included. Otherwise it's err, umm, there must be a term for it.

After all, we must have equal access and no dicrimination is allowed.

 

[El Tejon]

*Looks at Indiana Constitution* Well, I'm slightly over 17 so I am in the militia.

I guess that means I have to start eating a lot more and stop exercising.

 

[Kali Endgame]

Support roles are as equally important as the trigger pullers. You don't have to run consecutive(sp) sub five minute miles to be useful. There was an old Carry Grant movie were he reported planes that flew over his island during WW2. He was an alcoholic and most likely combat ineffective. Was he going to charge the hill and take out the machine gun nest? No. What he did was provide intelligence. In the Valley of the Blind, the one eyed man is King. There is more to War than rounds down range. Logistics and Support can win or loose a war.

 

[Jeff White]

I don't suppose I'll ever be in the militia. I was transferred to the retired reserve when I retired from the Army and am subject to active duty recall by the Secretary of the Army.

Guess I'm a member of the standing army for life.

Jeff

 

[RealGun]

you can argue that the Ninth Amendment encompasses a right to an effective means of self defense that includes possession of firearms.

I believe it turns the Ninth against itself to construe it to empower the US to protect our unenumerated rights. - hugh damright

Could you explain what you think it means other than its plain wording. It sounds like you find the 9A to be inconvenient, perhaps because it could be used to curtail a State action.

 

[Marshall]

The average life expectancy in 1876 was 55yrs old too. A far cry from today's. At 45yr old you were were fighting at about a 65yr old age today.

 

[mnrivrat]

To take it one step further, since the 2ndA says nothing about hunting or target shooting, could it be construed, on some level, that a person having no Militia eligability does not have a right to firearm ownership?

That ,my friend, is not an appropriate step to take. And to answer your question, NO , it can not, and should not, be construed that firearm ownership at any level is tied to militia eligability.
It is simply a statement of a reason, but not meant to be the only reason, that " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" .

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
-Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982)

Just one example of a study on that particular subject.

 

[longeyes]

half-man, half-machine, all American

That applied before we all became semi-cyborgs with SUVs, ATVs, radio communication, and semi-auto weapons.