What the Militia is all about...

[shafter]

"Militia" had a negative connotation even in the 18th and 19th Centuries. it conveyed an image of untrained, undisciplined wannabes and pretend they ares who were prone to panic, scattered at the first volley from an enemy, wouldn't stand, wouldn't fight outside their home area-the Battle of Queenston Heights in the War of 1812, e.g. During the Civil War the militia in the Confederacy were usually the under- and over-age, led by officers seen as draft dodgers.
Before the Revolution the militiaman was required to provide his own firearm, only requirement was that it could not be of "bastard bore", i.e. anything other than the .75 of the Brown Bess. Though I suspect that wasn't that rigorously enforced.
At the Battle of Cowpens Daniel Morgan put his militia in the front line, his Continentals in the second. He told the militiamen, "Give me two volleys and then you can run." his intent was l they could was slow down, harass the enemy, he didn't expect them to stand.

Excellent point. Morgan knew the militia would run so he used it to his advantage to set a trap. Washington brought in Von Stueben because he knew his men needed proper training. He and his men were getting beaten repeatedly until they became a real army.

Ambush tactics can win some fights on a small scale but that doesn't win the war. Militia can be a real nuisance but real soldiers almost always beat them.

 

[Jim Watson]

Harry Truman said that in WWII the Army could train raw recruits and draftees faster than they could get reservists ready to deploy.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Yes, but as I pointed out, the current definition of "the militia" in the U.S.Code is not relevant to the 2nd Amendment. For that, under an originalist interpretation, we have to go back to the militia as it existed in 1791 -- which was much broader than the current definition. In 1791, everybody who could carry a musket was subject to callup for militia service. There were no medical standards other than being able to breathe and walk, and no upper age limit. (Of course, slaves and women were not included then. But women and black people would certainly be included now.)

Awhile back I read that there were women who served, but at least some of them dressed and presented themselves as men in order to do so.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I always thought the okay symbol was a troll joke. No way anybody took that seriously?

You'd be surprised at what some people take seriously these days.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

When the peacetime draft law was passed in 1940 the Regular Army had a strength of about 269,023, the National Guard had a strength of 300,000 and was called up for one year. When Pearl Harbor occured there were no reserves as we think of them today. Plus a fair number of Regular Army and National Guards were considered too old for overseas deployment, used for administrative positions,permament party on bases, instructors, etc.
Women were "camp followers"-the support troops. Cooks, laundresses, seamstresses, nurses, etc.
In fairness to the militia back then they did not have the organized supply trains of regular forces, they were intended only for local defense.

 

[old lady new shooter]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia?" " It is the whole people except for a few public officials."

George Mason.


My father in law signed into the Noorvik Alaska Militia when Japan invaded Alaska.
Brought his rifle and counted out his rounds, made his mark, elected leaders and kept his eyes open while on the land and seas, hunting.
The Army came later and inducted the whole group, with rank, pay and arms. 30-06 1917 Enfields all around. They were formed as the Alaska Territorial Guard, "ATG"
They were given ammo to muster with and more ammo in a time when it was scares and encouraged to take their rifles everywhere and hunt, make a living and continue to provide for themselves, all the while keeping an eye out and training regularly.
He spent most of his duty time in Nome, as he worked there in the summer and a transfer in the ATG was not hard.
When the war was over, they were payed, discharged and took their rifles home.

I never knew Japan invaded Alaska! Thank you.

 

[Jim Watson]

The second amendment does not say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Article 1 of the constitution forbids the states from keeping troops.

? A lot of states have a State Guard.

I just went searching, as of September 2021 here is the list:

Alaska

California

Connecticut

Georgia

Indiana

Louisiana*

Maryland

Michigan

Missouri

Mississippi

New Mexico

New York

Ohio

Puerto Rico (Social Media Page)

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

* = No Website, Current Means of Contact, and/or DeActivated

This is from https://statedefenseforce.com/main/join-the-state-defense-force/find-your-state-defense-force/.

Here is the wikipedia article about state defense forces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

 

[old lady new shooter]

Considering that the extremely low-tech mountain militias of Afghanistan, to a an extent, found success against both the Russian and United States armed forces for 20 years, I believe there is evidence contrary to your argument.

Yep, did you ever see photos of them? Fighting in slip-on sandals!

 

[AlexanderA]

? A lot of states have a State Guard.

I addressed this earlier in the thread. First of all, the Constitution prohibits states from keeping troops without the consent of Congress. Congress has given its consent by passing the various Militia Acts, including the ones that set up the National Guard.

Secondly, the constitutional restriction hinges on the word "keeping" troops. Merely enrolling people in a militia, and requiring them to show up for annual musters, does not amount to "keeping" troops. That would apply to a permanent garrison where the troops would have to be fed, quartered, and supplied.

 

[caribou]

The People are The Militia.
The Right to Bear arms and The Right to Peaceably Assemble, in this case armed for training, and therefore 'well regulated", is what reinforce's this.

Defense forces are as old as humans, and a natural Right.
Its also what we had before Police Forces arose.

 

[21H40]

Am I the only one who wants nothing to do with being in the militia?

I did the Army thing for two decades, and I'm really enjoying this new stage in life. I don't want to report to some person (appointed by the governor? mayor? city council?) who hasn't done anything to convince me of their qualifications other than play local politics. Practicing squad movement techniques with a bunch of lumbering couch potatoes must really be a bonus level in hell second only to getting killed when those teammates can't perform well enough under fire.

Historically, militias also get pulled out of town to defend the more important people's homes - leaving their own families at the mercy of some REMF or militia reject. No thanks.

Besides, I don't want to join any fighting force that is so desperate that they would take me.

 

[AlexanderA]

Am I the only one who wants nothing to do with being in the militia?

If "the militia" is definitional, that is, "the militia" = "the people," you wouldn't have a choice. You would be in the militia, like it or not.

The various activities that you describe change the definition from a universal militia to a self-selected militia, which can be prohibited (see Presser v. Illinois).

This whole discussion of "militia" is notional rather than practical. But notions are what legal doctrines are made of.

 

[21H40]

If "the militia" is definitional, that is, "the militia" = "the people," you wouldn't have a choice. You would be in the militia, like it or not.
The various activities that you describe change the definition from a universal militia to a self-selected militia, which can be prohibited (see Presser v. Illinois).
This whole discussion of "militia" is notional rather than practical. But notions are what legal doctrines are made of.

Thanks. I'm having a difficult time with the notional v. practical and the actual intent of the concept.

If the militia is everyone, then why call it out as something different? What does this label do that the label "citizen" or "resident" doesn't?

Is the notional militia really everyone willing to defend themselves from criminals - as implied in the video?
Aren't the criminals also part of the people - and so also part of the militia?

When I hear militia, I think of a group of armed people with a defined purpose. What is the purpose of the militia, really, in this context?

 

[DustyGmt]

Militia has a legal definition in the US Code.

(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.

10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA (house.gov)


I see this was mentioned in the thread about 20 minutes ago, but I've spelled it out because it's worth repeating.

I'm surprised it doesn't make mention of the State Guard. Don't most states have a State Guard who are essentially a volunteer militia, that can be dispatched at the governors discretion in support of the National Guard or any other military branch for emergencies like natural disaster and such. Just curious

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Is the notional militia really everyone willing to defend themselves from criminals - as implied in the video?
Aren't the criminals also part of the people - and so also part of the militia?

The Militia are the citizenry-in-arms. The men who fought the battles of Concord and Bunker Hill were militia. Convicted criminals who are barred from bearing arms are not part of the militia.

 

[AlexanderA]

I'm surprised it doesn't make mention of the State Guard. Don't most states have a State Guard who are essentially a volunteer militia, that can be dispatched at the governors discretion in support of the National Guard or any other military branch for emergencies like natural disaster and such. Just curious

The purpose of 10 U.S. 246 is to define a pool of people who would be eligible to be called up for military service. If and when the draft is reinstated, this would streamline the process. 10 U.S.C. 246 has almost no relevance to the 2nd Amendment.

The Virginia Defense Force is the equivalent of a State Guard. It's basically unarmed, consists of 275 members, and (I think) its main function is to babysit the National Guard facilities in case the Guard is called up. It's generally regarded as a joke. The situation in other states is similar.

Thanks. I'm having a difficult time with the notional v. practical and the actual intent of the concept.

It started out as practical. The Founders really didn't have the money to support a standing army, and anyway they were suspicious of a standing army usurping power. So the cheap (and democratic) way to provide a defense was by having a universal militia. The hard reality of the War of 1812 proved that this was unworkable, and so the universal militia, with its annual musters that turned into drunken parties, fell out of favor by the 1820's. Universal militias were replaced by volunteer militias (which were a social phenomenon themselves, but certainly didn't include everybody). By the time of the Civil War, the universal militia was a distant memory.

Nevertheless, the constitutional provisions regarding the militia (including the 2nd Amendment) linger on to this day. They can't be ignored. So, notionally, we have to turn the clock back to 1791 and try to reconstruct the system as it was then, even though it doesn't exist now.

 

[Shanvanvocht]

Ambush tactics can win some fights on a small scale but that doesn't win the war. Militia can be a real nuisance but real soldiers almost always beat them.

So, I guess the Irish didn't gain independence in 1920-21?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So, I guess the Irish didn't gain independence in 1920-21?

They hanged young Kevin Barry high, a lad of 18 years
Cork City's flames lit up the sky, but the brave boys knew no fear
The Cork Brigade with hand grenades in ambush waiting lay
And the Black-and-Tans like lightening ran from the rifles of the IRA.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Go here to see it.

Extra points for identifying the song they're singing as they come marching out of the mist.

 

[DustyGmt]

(I think) its main function is to babysit the National Guard facilities in case the Guard is called up. It's generally regarded as a joke. The situation in other states is similar.

That's understandable, considering the age range for state guard volunteers is 18-81.

 

[21H40]

The Militia are the citizenry-in-arms. The men who fought the battles of Concord and Bunker Hill were militia. Convicted criminals who are barred from bearing arms are not part of the militia.

Concord and Bunker Hill were battles in a very different America. That militia was a group of men with a rank structure and a focused goal. The closest thing I'm aware of currently are the groups like Oathkeepers and the Michigan Militia, and I hate to think that RKBA needs to be connected to them.

If the militia concept is critically important to RKBA, then it seems like basic militia restrictions should apply to RKBA. An earlier post mentioned ages up to 45, so everyone over 46 doesn't get RKBA, right? If you can't march the militia doesn't need you - so wheelchairs also disqualify RKBA.

I want RKBA for citizens unrelated to militia requirements or hypothetical duties, especially if I can't get a good answer on who the militia actually is and what they are supposed to do.

 

[Kevin5098]

Go here to see it.

Extra points for identifying the song they're singing as they come marching out of the mist.

If you're referring to the move "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" it was Óró sé do bheatha abhaile. Good movie, good song.

 

[shafter]

Concord and Bunker Hill were battles in a very different America. That militia was a group of men with a rank structure and a focused goal. The closest thing I'm aware of currently are the groups like Oathkeepers and the Michigan Militia, and I hate to think that RKBA needs to be connected to them.

If the militia concept is critically important to RKBA, then it seems like basic militia restrictions should apply to RKBA. An earlier post mentioned ages up to 45, so everyone over 46 doesn't get RKBA, right? If you can't march the militia doesn't need you - so wheelchairs also disqualify RKBA.

I want RKBA for citizens unrelated to militia requirements or hypothetical duties, especially if I can't get a good answer on who the militia actually is and what they are supposed to do.

Very different America and very different weapons and tactics. In those days the weaponry was the same for both sides with the only real difference being training, experience, and discipline. Communities were small and very close knit with easy communication.

Nowadays there is a massive discrepancy in the firearms a militia could bring to bear vs an actual army with an even larger discrepancy in intelligence capabilities.

The militia could have been an interesting concept in modern times had there been no prohibition on what the common people are allowed to possess.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The militia could have been an interesting concept in modern times had there been no prohibition on what the common people are allowed to possess.

Which is exactly what the founders intended.

"All the terrible implements of the soldier." -- Tench Coxe