Just what is a Militia anyways?


December 28, 2002, 09:24 PM
Okay so far the Circuit Courts are split on the 2nd Amendment applying to a Militia, or applying to an individual. Let's say the Supreme Court returns to work January 2nd so hung over they decide unilateraly that the 2nd Amendment only allows Militia's the right to bear arms, deer and duck hunters be dammed.

Who decides what a Militia is? Has there been a legal deffinition yet? We all know the negative conatations with applying the term Militia to ourselves, but what is stopping me from saying my wife and I are a unit of the 17th Washington State Militia Regiment, commanded by Ronald McDonald?

Because, in a real sence, when they finally do try to say we can't have them anymore, and we say we will fight to keep that right, aren't we forming the Militia that the Founding Fathers intended us to form in the Constitution?

If you enjoyed reading about "Just what is a Militia anyways?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
December 28, 2002, 09:36 PM
USC Title 10, Chapter 13
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(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.

December 28, 2002, 09:45 PM
The Supreme court already stated in the US vs Miller decision (which was not an anti-gun decision BTW if you read it...) that the militia is all able bodied males.


I believe that could easily be extended that with today's thinking of equality and such to be all able bodied citizens. Also, that seems to directly protect assault type weapons, as they are the "of the kind in common use at the time" for militia type activities.

Of course you'd have to be an idiot to read the second amendment and come out thinking it does not refer to individuals...

Texas Gunman
December 28, 2002, 10:42 PM
Of course you'd have to be an idiot to read the second amendment and come out thinking it does not refer to individuals...

I agree with ya on that, but these idiots will come out saying it doesnt apply to all of us.


Jim March
December 28, 2002, 11:56 PM
Hkmp5sd correctly quoted current Federal law ("USC" means United States Code). It's been in that form since the late 1800s but the definition of "militia" dates to an earlier Federal law passed in 1792. Citizen militias were in existence in the colonies going WAY back further; 1600's colonial laws often required able-bodied males to own arms.

The founding fathers paid attention to previous writers and theorists on Republican government, most of whom feared standing armies. Machiavelli was one such - he was actually elected Captain of a citizen militia company and served with distinction in combat. Dude wasn't just a theorist.

Go read Stephen Halbrook's "That Every Man Be Armed" (1984) for a complete history of classical Republican political theory as it related to citizen militias.

Reinhardt's ignoring all this was massive misconduct.

December 29, 2002, 12:12 AM
Reinhardt's ignoring all this was massive misconduct

Jim, is that a reference to the 9th Circuit's recent bout of lunacy (senility?)?
If so, it looks more like misfeasance or malfeasance, to me. But that rarely flies against a Federal Judge, as impeachment would be the only immediate remedy. And that is a tough thing to get done.

December 29, 2002, 12:37 AM

Well Regulated Militia
by Liberty Rogue

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Of times people overlook this very important part of the second amendment and only concentrate on the second half, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. But what here is said being necessary to the security of a free state? Yes a Well Regulated Militia. Regulated, as many people have pointed out, means well trained and well armed.

We see according to the second amendment, just keeping and bearing arms is not necessary, A WELL REGULATED MILITIA is necessary to the security of a FREE state. I cannot know what American Revolutionaries meant but can only assume. If they thought only keeping and bearing arms was necessary they could have worded the amendment something along the lines of "Right of People to keep and bear arms being necessary to the security of free state, shall not be infringed." But they did not word it like that. They worded it as "A well regulated Militia".

What inference can we draw from this? Founding Fathers understood that only having arms will not do, people who own arms MUST be organized and trained. Organized and trained as a militia ready to defend the Freedom and Liberty from any threat from anywhere.

This has been long forgotten by most of the people outside the Freedom Movement. Lets put that aside for a moment.

What does the forces allied against freedom demonize the most? The militia movement. The militia movement has been demonized in the media, in schools, by almost all the politicians and even in neo-conservative publications and magazines. One would ask why would they demonize the militia movement so much. Is it because it stuck at some point that freedom movement in general was missing out?

The statists always come up with an argument in favor of Big State using the argument of security. A big state can provide a good security. And Libertarians are made to back of using this argument again and again. The question is put up to the ordinary public whether they would choose liberty or security? Brave people who lived in earlier America would obviously choose liberty. But public indoctrination centers have made cowards out of most of the population and they would invariably choose security.

But that is the wrong question. There is a quote "If they can get you asking wrong questions they don't have to worry about the answer." The question asked must be how can the security and liberty be simultaneously made possible. I see some liberty-oriented people go in the media and beat the drum that we should not give up our fundamental rights. The average man and woman out there simply do not receive that message favorably. The debate must be changed to how can liberty and security be achieved at the same time.

The answer is simple: The Militia.

Militia can preserve both liberty and security at the same time. Militia is composed of all the people capable of bearing arms. That means that the Tyrant(s) will have to fight each and every man. But then it defeats the whole purpose of the Tyrant(s). If he will kill all the people then whom will he rule? "You cannot enslave a free man, the most you can do is kill him." - Robert Heilein. This is the reason why Switzerland remained independent because any invading army would have to fight every last Swiss man. A militia may not have as much firepower as a professional army might, but it has the huge advantage of a large amount of manpower. And when the militia collides with an invading professional army, militia has two further advantages, it is fighting on a home territory and it can fight guerrilla warfare. Furthermore militiamen are fighting for their freedom and have nothing to loose as opposed to the invading standing army that fights for various reasons.

At the same time militia also provides very high security, as much security as it is humanly possible. How is this so? Because the militia can be at all the places whereas the police or standing army cannot. This is the simplest reason why militia provides a great security. They are present everywhere and can combat any trouble from criminals and control freaks (tyrants) at any place where such criminals might try to infringe upon life, liberty or property of free people.

But the often-overlooked third great advantage of militia is maintenance of peace. A militia fights their best to defend their country, but its hardly likely that militia will get ambitious and go around invading other countries without legitimate grievances. That is one reason why Tyrant wannabees weaken the militia and strengthen the standing army. With a huge standing army comes imperialist ambitions and desire to stick the nose in other countries business. With militia people tend to fight their best to defend their country, but leave other countries to mind their own business. Such is the usefulness of militia. Three in one package deal: Liberty, Security and Peace. Militia may want to consider adopting this motto. But why then do we see very little of militias in the history of the humanity. For the same reason we see very little of Liberty in the history of humanity. So far the history of humanity has been one of oppression and war. America was the first country to base its most basic philosophy on the ideals of Freedom and Natural Rights and thus it was one country where militia flourished. Or it is highly likely that because the militia flourished in old colonial days, freedom was flowing through this land. It has been said that Capitalism made America great, but another most important thing that made America great is forgotten: A well regulated Militia.

Freedom is linked to the maintenance of a militia, not just a right to keep and bear arms. Coming back to our earlier point on the topic of Demonization of militias. I asked the rhetorical question: Did militia movement hit on a key weakness of the statists, and it's my opinion that it did.

Normally Liberty, Security and Peace are three different things, and welfare-warfare state despises all three of them, because its revenue depends on propagation of fear and war. Nobody denies that Libertarian party is the most pro-freedom party in America. But a lot of people are simply not interested in freedom. Some place Security above Liberty, others place Peace over liberty.

Patrick Henry said, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty god. I know not course others may take, as for me give me Liberty or give me Death."

Sadly a large percentage of the population would say that life is dearer than liberty and peace is sweeter than freedom. Statists know that in the face of huge opposition it would take Libertarian Party decades to turn ordinary citizens into liberty lovers like Patrick Henry. Statists also know that they would break down the resolve of lot of libertarians in this large time period. Thus Libertarian Party was just brushed aside by them.

Mid 90's and Militias were popping up all over the country. In reality militias were defensive in nature, and the people who promoted violence were mostly agent provocateurs sent by Globalists. Why would the people who control media who knew militias weren't dangerous portray them as such? Maybe because Militias offered a three in one deal to the citizens: Liberty, Security and Peace.

Now an ordinary person might choose security over liberty, but people in America are still pro-freedom. If they could get both of them, they would surely take it. If militia movement had succeeded this is what the people would have got. The rank and file Liberals would also have realized that instead of a world full of standing armies under the control of politicians, a world full of national citizen militias would be a much safer and peaceful world.

That is what in my opinion had the elites of neo-conservative movement and liberal establishment wetting their pants. A Militia can clear of the gangs without much trouble. Militias can stop the Tyranny. Militias can stop any invading foreign army. That is why it was necessary for them to demonize the militia movement before people realized that if they wanted Liberty, Security and Peace all at once then only one institution could provide such: A well regulated Militia.

I was disappointed at the CATO institutes' report that people have no right to form into a militia. First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble, Second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, and ninth amendment protects all other rights including right to self-defense. Combining these three rights one can draw a logical inference that a group of people have a right to come together and furthermore a right to individual as well as collective self defense.

Furthermore Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution clearly lists: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions" Notice the precise words used. It lists to provide for calling forth the militia. Now it would be ridiculous to assume that the militia, that is all of the people, are not to train but to wait till the last moment of invasion. Thus we can assume that the training of the militia is to be left in the hands of the militia itself. That means laws against paramilitary training would be unconstitutional.

So far I explored the reason why the militia might be demonized, but what is going to be the future of the militia?

Consider the fact that on CNN, they tried to link Michigan Militia to Al Qaeda saying that the Michigan militia was down in South America in 1985. But Michigan Militia was formed in early or mid nineties. Clearly on a channel such as CNN they could not make such a mistake. It was done on purpose.

In Denver spy file case, the Libertarian Party was written as a "militia" group. Now anybody with a brain the size of a pea can see that Libertarian Party is the most peaceful party in the United States. Again it was not a mistake.

Patrick Henry said, "I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past." I was just a kid when the Reichstag oops I meant OKC happened, but most of the readers might remember it well. According to what I gather, there was a huge backlash against the Right Wing in general and militias and constitutionalists in particular.

Alex Jones suggested on his radio show that people instead of calling themselves militia call themselves something that would be very hard for media to demonize. Say for example Civilian Defense Forces. Civilian Defense Forces can do a variety of things, from volunteering in community events like blood drive to get favorable coverage from the media to educating the local kids about Constitution. But mainly the Civilian Defense Force can train themselves and others to defend the civilians (their Life, Liberty and Property) against enemies foreign and domestic, without being demonized by the media.

The above two examples (CNN and Denver Spy Case) might serve as Red Flags of things likely to come. The biggest threat to Globalist Tyranny or the New World Order is the freedom movement. They know it, and they are not denying it. Indeed the Globalists might create a crisis sooner or later, crises of big magnitude to generate much emotions of fear among the people, and then blame it on the Radical Right, and lest you forget, that includes the Libertarians.

The times that try the soul of men are coming...

December 29, 2002, 12:53 AM
In PA, and this is very real, the Militia is ALL CITIZENS 17 1/2 to 55 years old and others by their application.

this is according to PA law, and if you ask the PA dept of military affairs, they will confirm this.


December 29, 2002, 01:26 AM
Worth Reading...

Well Regulated Militia
by Liberty Rogue

G, that's not only worth reading, it's worth reading SEVERAL times!

Thanks for posting it! :D

December 29, 2002, 01:34 AM
Excellent Post!!

December 29, 2002, 01:39 AM
In PA, and this is very real, the Militia is ALL CITIZENS 17 1/2 to 55 years old and others by their application.

Is there a chance in hell this could be construed as allowing me (in a year) or my dad to have 'military/leo' postbans as pennsylvanian militia (by that definition) :cool:

I m not stupid enough to try this, but it is another flaw in that evil brady bill

December 29, 2002, 03:58 AM
Now that the academics are established, I'd like to ask some subjective questions. (Please forgive my ignorance, it’s been a few years since we've spent any length of time back home and miss a lot of the subtleties of the Nat’l mood.)

Do they (the militias) have a PR problem, or is it just the media bias?
Do many Americans see (wrongly or otherwise, as the case may be) militias members as "wannabes", "weekend warriors", "psychos from Idaho", etc?
Do the local groups rally to help in Nat’l disasters (like the Nat'l Guard), pass out toys at needy children’s festivals (Bikers), or sponsor educational seminars (NRA, Boy Scouts)?

I may be erroneously trying to mix apples and oranges here, but it seems like more good press would go a long way toward helping reverse some negative stereotypes, if there are any.

December 29, 2002, 04:41 AM
The problem is the bad rap that Militia's received following the Oklahoma City Bombing. Since McVeigh had been a member of a militia, although only for a short period of time, plus he was very vocal about the 2nd Amendment, the media, Clinton and the democrats jumped all over it.

Suddenly, the militia's were "training terrorists", were "composed of the skinheads and Klan members" and were shown running around in camo uniforms with their semi- AK's playing soldier and looking like a bunch of idiots. Of course, they were all said to be NRA members.

This is now the common perception by most of the population and reinforced by continuos stories by "investigative reporters" and any democrat running for election.

December 29, 2002, 05:37 AM
Yeah, thanks, media circus at the victims' expense, nothing new there, right? If it bleeds, it leads. Too bad they make millions by pandering to the lowest common denominator, but, in the end, the news is part of the entertainment industry, and it’s a business, not a public service.
So, given that knowing the tactics of your “enemy” is sound doctrine, why not apply lessons learned? I don't want to sound naive here, but what about the possible positives? My suggestions are, I think, in keeping with the whole “grass-roots” feel of the militia org. Community service, not just target practice. Do something good, and at the same time, make an entertaining news story.

If you enjoyed reading about "Just what is a Militia anyways?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!