Morbid Curiosity: Are there any actual militias in the USA?

[oldjones]

It's the Second Amendment thing of course:

US Constitution, Bill of Rights
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.

I'm curious which are the militias providing that said state security, and how arms-bearing by private citizens who are not members relates to it/them. I know that second clause is the nub of the two hundred year and more argument, but it's also all about reading meaning into the comma that connects them, and that's entirely changeable from one Court's interpretation to the next. Anyway, TERB is not a court. So please. Topic: Militias, if possible.

As one of the two neighbours of the US, the security of whose free states is jeopardized by the right of the people that lie between us to keep and bear arms (and by extension sell them to our wrong doers) we folk to the north have a direct interest in such things. And it all seems to begin with the militia-thing.

So: Are there any organizations that have been defined as Militias under the amendment, and what are they? How do they work? Or is "Militia" as used here, something else entirely?

 

[ig-88]

Yes.

See:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_us.htm

 

[WoodPeckr]

There are a couple militia groups, the Minutemen comes to mind but doubt they are 'well regulated'......

 

[Aardvark154]

Morbid Curiosity: Are there any actual militias in the USA?

Yes, in all fifty states under the command of the Governor also in Puerto Rico and in the City of Washington (District of Columbia).

In particular see The Militia Act of 1903 and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008.

It just so happens there is a Militia in Canada as well - do you know what your local Regiment is?

 

[oldjones]

Thanks ig, but that link was mostly dead and useless. I'll check out the Aardman's links when I can, but it sounds like, for practical purposes, militia=National Guard. Am I getting warm?

 

[Aardvark154]

Thanks ig, but that link was mostly dead and useless. I'll check out the Aardman's links when I can, but it sounds like, for practical purposes, militia=National Guard. Am I getting warm?

Organized Militia, and organized is an important word.

The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed that that the right is individual. You may not like that but that's the way it is.

 

[pin01]

Wasn't the Michigan Militia part of the Oklahoma City bombings?

 

[Aardvark154]

Wasn't the Michigan Militia part of the Oklahoma City bombings?

Sort of like calling yourself the Northwest Mounted Police or Compagnie Franche de la Marine. Saying it's so and being the real McCoy are different things.

 

[oldjones]

Wasn't the Michigan Militia part of the Oklahoma City bombings?

Not what I'm interested in, thanks. The Second Amendment clearly intends an officially recognized organization to defend the state, at least as I read it. As Aardvark says, saying you're a militia doesn't make it so.

Unfortunately for their posterity, the framers tied the two clauses together with only a comma, leaving their intended relationship more than a little unclear.

I haven't had time to follow up, but if the National Guards are the militias referred to, then it would seem the right to bear arms has no relation to their existence or efficiency. The right stands apart and separate. As if that comma were a period.

As a gun-averse guy, I'd prefer the framers had clearly articulated something like the old Swiss model: every adult is trained and serves in the forces/militia then is on call, militia weapon (and only taht weapon) safely stored at home. But they didn't.

I'm trying to understand the disconnect between the sensible purpose of the first clause and the current chaos the disconnected second has produced throughout North America.

 

[viking1965]

Not what I'm interested in, thanks. The Second Amendment clearly intends an officially recognized organization to defend the state, at least as I read it. As Aardvark says, saying you're a militia doesn't make it so.

Unfortunately for their posterity, the framers tied the two clauses together with only a comma, leaving their intended relationship more than a little unclear.

I haven't had time to follow up, but if the National Guards are the militias referred to, then it would seem the right to bear arms has no relation to their existence or efficiency. The right stands apart and separate. As if that comma were a period.

As a gun-averse guy, I'd prefer the framers had clearly articulated something like the old Swiss model: every adult is trained and serves in the forces/militia then is on call, militia weapon (and only taht weapon) safely stored at home. But they didn't.

I'm trying to understand the disconnect between the sensible purpose of the first clause and the current chaos the disconnected second has produced throughout North America.

Jonesy,

Your asking a very valid, but nonetheless rhetorical, question.

The "National Guard", as we know it today, did not exist when the Second Amendment was ratified. At the time of it's writing, the "militia" was understood to be similar to the "Swiss model" of all able bodied adult males. As to armament, since black-powder muzzle loaders were the latest technology at the time, there was no need to "regulate" what type of weapon the the milita members should own/use.

Having no foresight into the advancement of weaponry and the eventual establishment of "official" militias (National Guard), the Amendment was written in a context that served it's pupose at the time.

Where we, as a nation, have failed, is in not establishing, at a federal level, sufficient additional amendments/laws which take these new developments into account and provide further legislation around private weapon ownership for the purpose of self defense; A specific right which was only recently recognized by SCOTUS with the Heller decision. I'm not sure where the "tipping point" of our inordinate level of gun voilence started (probably late 60's early 70's) but it has since spiralled out of control and we know have very little chance of establishing "reasonable" federal gun laws, given the strength of the gun lobby.

To recap, the problem is not with the Second Amendment per se, but in our lack of "maintaning" it's purpose and focus appropriately, and in a tiemly fashion.

 

[Aardvark154]

A further point being overlooked is the regional nature of gun violence in the U.S. In Montanna firearm ownership is nearly universal yet gun violence is quite low. In Detroit firearm ownership is fairly low, yet gun violence is quite high.

 

[oldjones]

You have grokked my porpoise, viking. Since persuading gun owners simply not to use them is somewhat unrealistic; some form of law will be required. As I understand, there's in fact a thicket of laws from municipal up, that have failed to curb harmful use. And as you say, there's a lobby devoted to keeping the laws hobbled.

Seems the hope would be in redefining that comma more meaningfully, with stated demonstrable militia purposes. Like maybe: Wanna own a gun? Gotta join up, take the training, be answerable to the call. None who are not thus maintaining the 'militia' get to bear arms, but neither will anyone's right to join, and thus to bear arms, be denied. The militia will take all comers.

But at least then, you'd get to know who the gun owners are, how they've been trained, and so on. And maybe there will be a fighting chance of instilling some social ethics, better dispute settlement techniques—even hand-to-hand—and social cohesion along the way. Having invested their time, the militia members wouldn't countenance easy access to weapons for non-members, which would tend to shrink the illicit market. And slowly, it—and the existing laws, amnesties and such— might make a real difference to gun violence.

But this isn't a new idea is it?

 

[Aardvark154]

Seems the hope would be in redefining that comma more meaningfully

Obviously what you want the court to do is to overturn its ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 290 (2008), this is highly unlikely given the composition of the court and likely resignations over the next four to eight years.

I find it interesting that although I'm not wildly crazy about Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973), I firmly recognize that the Court has spoken (Stare Decisis and all that jazz) and that it is here to stay and indeed it is dangerious to try to overturn it at this point. While seemingly you want to refuse to acknowledge any precedent from not only from comentary about the Second Amendment but even from Heller.

 

[Aardvark154]

Since persuading gun owners simply not to use them is somewhat unrealistic; some form of law will be required. As I understand, there's in fact a thicket of laws from municipal up, that have failed to curb harmful use. And as you say, there's a lobby devoted to keeping the laws hobbled.

So how is it proposed that all the legal firearms would be registered or confiscated or what ever the idea is short of a Gestapo like state and the likely resultant revolution?

One need only to look at the example of Prohibition in the U.S. to see what happens when the vast majority of the population has utterly no respect for the law of the land.

 

[Aardvark154]

Wanna own a gun? Gotta join up, take the training, be answerable to the call. None who are not thus maintaining the 'militia' get to bear arms, but neither will anyone's right to join, and thus to bear arms, be denied. The militia will take all comers.

And in some ways this is what the militia was like in the Revolutionary period, however, then you have another strong stream in the American tradition: Religious Pacifism. In the conflict between the two conscientious objection triumphed over the concept of mandatory universal military service.

If you are truely interested do some reading on the Pennsylvania Militia Acts from 1776 through about 1820 as well as the fight over even having a Militia Act from 1744-1748 and again from 1755 to about 1759.

 

[oldjones]

Now don't get ahead of me: I've not suggested any confiscation, or even registration, so it's a waste arguing against that unmade poroposal.

But it's hard to deny that the proliferation of American guns is a problem, for Mexico and Canada, if not continent-wide, and that some sort of control will have to be found. At the source always seems a good starting place.

I'm not "refusing acknowledgement" of any precedents, which is why I ended with a question inviting such information, and I thank you for it. But for all of stare decisis common law does evolve as newer decisions displace the old. Roe wasn't found under a cabage leaf, without forebearers, and no one a generation earlier would have, or could have predicted it would be the law of the land. There may yet be a 'right to bear arms' Roe somewhere in the future.

I'll see what sense I can make of Heller. Any thoughts on the proposal I did make?

 

[Aardvark154]

But it's hard to deny that the proliferation of American guns is a problem, for Mexico and Canada, if not continent-wide, and that some sort of control will have to be found.

It's known as Canadian border control. Don't they ever bother to ask you whether you have firearms in the vehicle?

There may yet be a 'right to bear arms' Roe somewhere in the future.

The right to keep and bear arms has been around a lot longer than abortions being legal. Why is not District of Columbia v. Heller that case to your mind - other than that you don't agree with the decision?

 

[oldjones]

It's known as Canadian border control. Don't they ever bother to ask you whether you have firearms in the vehicle?
The right to keep and bear arms has been around a lot longer than abortions being legal. Why is not District of Columbia v. Heller that case to your mind - other than that you don't agree with the decision?

Well, as your President acknowledged, it's also a US export problem, and not only to the north, but to the south as well. No, as a returning Canadian, I have never been asked. My American wife remebers as achild that her father left his hunting rifle in the custody of Canada Customs. But those were gentler times.

I'm not sure what you're driving at comparing the right to bear arms with the right to abortion; how does the longstanding of either relate? And where did you get the idea I disagreed with a decision I had just thanked you for bringing to my attention, and said I had yet to read?

Quick Impression of a Heller Skim: Individual right precedes, having a militia follows from that right. But it seemed intentionally limited to bearing arms primarily for self-defense, and customary uses—hunting—not to create a blanket permission for all arms, laws regulating sale and such were explicitly allowed and there was significant dissent.

I make not like a decision, and wish it had gone otherwise, but my agreement hardly matters does it? What I'm interested in is what can be done, given that constitutional provision, to solve what I see as a problem. Just as Robert Levy, who brought that case, tried to solve the problem he saw. It intrigues me, and it's a very real issue for your neighbours.

But perhaps you don't see any problem needing a legal solution, and I'm missing that?

 

[Aardvark154]

Well, as your President acknowledged, it's also a US export problem, and not only to the north, but to the south as well.

The President of the U.S. and the Secretary of State made more than a bit of a mistake. It is true that 90 percent of weapons submitted to the ATF by Mexican authorities were found to have been originally sold in the U.S.

The only problem is, that, this number constitutes just 17 percent of all firearms seized in connection with crimes in Mexico. The Mexican authorities do not even bother to submit for tracing the over 80 percent of firearms that they have reason to believe did not come from the United States.

Unfortunately this 90 percent figure has taken on a life of its own, and continues to be repeated long after it has been proved to be wildly inaccurate.

(One must wonder whether if such a stupendous gaff had been made by the former President would this not have been all over the news and TERB for weeks).

No, as a returning Canadian, I have never been asked.

I must just look suspicious as hell, or more likely my normal place of residence - anyway I've been asked a million times (probably close to literally).

I'm not sure what you're driving at comparing the right to bear arms with the right to abortion; how does the longstanding of either relate?

If one of the major points made about Roe is that it is settled law, and yet 40 years ago abortion was almost uniformly not just prohibited but criminal. How much more settled is the second amendment when the position that the right is individual dates back to the adoption of the amendment.

And where did you get the idea I disagreed with a decision I had just thanked you for bringing to my attention, and said I had yet to read?

Perhaps I'm confused after all this is merely TERB, but I see this as a follow-up to several other threads all basically stating that there is this huge problem in the U.S. and that somehow the firearms all need to be registered and or locked up some place. [I went back and you are right, I was getting different poster's mixed up - my appologies for that]

No I really don't see a Constitutional problem, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court got it right. However, I do agree that criminal penalties need to be stiffened for those committing firearm related crimes. Among those things would be Canada stiffening the penalties for smuggling firearms.

 

[viking1965]

You have grokked my porpoise, viking. Since persuading gun owners simply not to use them is somewhat unrealistic; some form of law will be required. As I understand, there's in fact a thicket of laws from municipal up, that have failed to curb harmful use. And as you say, there's a lobby devoted to keeping the laws hobbled.

Seems the hope would be in redefining that comma more meaningfully, with stated demonstrable militia purposes. Like maybe: Wanna own a gun? Gotta join up, take the training, be answerable to the call. None who are not thus maintaining the 'militia' get to bear arms, but neither will anyone's right to join, and thus to bear arms, be denied. The militia will take all comers.

But at least then, you'd get to know who the gun owners are, how they've been trained, and so on. And maybe there will be a fighting chance of instilling some social ethics, better dispute settlement techniques—even hand-to-hand—and social cohesion along the way. Having invested their time, the militia members wouldn't countenance easy access to weapons for non-members, which would tend to shrink the illicit market. And slowly, it—and the existing laws, amnesties and such— might make a real difference to gun violence.

But this isn't a new idea is it?

Sorry about your porpoise

Yes, the local and state laws have failed miserably, as I said; guns, particularly handguns, are very portable. This is why any useful gun legislation will need to be enacted at the federal level. The individual states are too politicized to hope for parity on gun laws.

Your proposal is an excellent one, it will unfortunately never fly, at least not anytime soon.

Further clarification after reading yours and Aardie's exchange:

The Second Amendment will not be repealed or "Amended". As Aardie stated, the Heller decision clarified that the Amendment does indeed protect ownership for the purpose of self defense (making the whole "connection to militia issue" a moot point). But even the assenting opinions left open the possibility, even the need, for additional reasonable legislation to prevent guns of any kind from getting into the hands of "undesirables" (mostly criminals and the mentally unfit).