Is a real, honest-to-God state controlled militia the answer?


PDA






goon
January 9, 2013, 11:04 PM
In reading the Militia Acts of 1792, it struck me that part of our problem is the mistrust that has developed between gun onwers and the government. I am not sure when that happened, but it was not always the case. The Militia Acts show that private gun ownership was not something our Founders looked upon with suspicion, but a necessary part of the national defense.

From my point of view, a legitimate militia that actually meets and trains regularly and can be called up by local or state authorities has several advantages.

1. The government gets a little control of gun owners, at least on paper. I have seen a list of what weapons militia members showed up with for muster called "the Gun roll" that I think dates to before the Revolution. So the idea of some higher authority than yourself knowing what weapon you had wasn't always so bad. At least on paper, the government knows that you have one rifle and that can make them feel warm and fuzzy.

2. Military spending. We spend a truckload of money on the military and we're so badly in debt we don't know what to do. We could decrease military spending by having a semi-trained militia ready to step up quickly and be assimilated into a real military force if needed, but otherwise not costing any more than whatever it takes to keep us semi-trained. Most of us would even stay semi-trained on our own.

3. Gun owners aren't the bad guys anymore.

4. People who are terrified of or despise guns will have some exposure to them in a positive light and may even build some comraderie with gun owners and realize that we don't all want to shoot up the local Pizza Hut.

5. Maybe we can weed out some nuts. Most of you are probably OK, but there are some guys out there who you positively do not want armed. But they do slip through the cracks. Maybe militia service would provide commanders the chance to help identify some of these people early and put the most dangerous ones under a little closer scrutiny.

6. We could be an asset during times of national emergencies. If even 20% of the population were trained in emergency first aid and other crisis type skills, they could be mobilized in a catastrophe and quickly used under an existing militia command structure (maybe under the local sheriff or police chief).

Just some thoughts.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is a real, honest-to-God state controlled militia the answer?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
joeschmoe
January 9, 2013, 11:09 PM
State controlled? We already have that.

You are the unorganinzed Militia. Every armed American is Militia. That is what the 2nd means. It means you.

You don't trust your fellow man? You won't fix that through the second amendment.
Let me know when they outlaw evil, crazy and stupid. See how that works out. Till then, I'm keeping my guns.

goon
January 9, 2013, 11:18 PM
The originial militia would have been under the authority of the state or some civil authority. It would have been called up in time of need. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to form a private army to do whatever you want. It was not put in place for that, but to ensure the security of a free state through an armed population.

I'm well aware of the distinction between the organized militia and the unorganized militia.
I am thinking of something along the lines of the Swiss system, and I don't think the Militia Act of 1792 has ever been repealed. I don't consider the National Guard a militia in the sense of what the Founders intended. No National Guard member shows up with his own rifle, ammunition, and equipment.

I am pro RKBA, I have been on this forum for years, I've owned a half dozen AK's and far too many others to count. I'm in the process of writing a letter expressing my support for the Second Amendment as an individual right as we speak, and I firmly believe it was meant to protect the common citizen's right to own a military style small arm. I'm not looking for a way to circumvent the Second Amendment so that gun owners can be disarmed, and I am not a troll.

I'm just floating an idea.
I'm really tired of all the distrust between citizens and the government. There has to be something we can do to get us all back on the same team.

ETXhiker
January 9, 2013, 11:21 PM
NO. The statists want to disarm EVERYONE. There are no concessions that will appease them. Guns are not the problem :banghead:

joeschmoe
January 9, 2013, 11:36 PM
The originial militia would have been under the authority of the state or some civil authority. It would have been called up in time of need. No. Only when called into actual service. You are Militia all the time. You can volunteer when a valid authority calls out the Militia, then you're under their authority, but you're always Militia.
The Second Amendment does not protect the right to form a private army to do whatever you want. It was not put in place for that, but to ensure the security of a free state through an armed population.I didn't say "form". The people are to be armed and at the ready. Passively, until needed. Going out to "form a private army to do what ever you want" is an action. Very different.

I'm well aware of the distinction between the organized militia and the unorganized militia.I don't think you are aware of the distinction. You are Militia, right now. You are always responsible for your actions (and unpaid). Civil and Criminal. The paid Military has imunity for thier actions, you do not.
I am thinking of something along the lines of the Swiss system, and I don't think the Militia Act of 1792 has ever been repealed.It's been revised many times and still valid under current USC. I don't consider the National Guard a militia in the sense of what the Founders intended. No National Guard member shows up with his own rifle, ammunition, and equipment.
Correct, they are paid, they are the organized militia of the several states. You are the unorganized Militia. I also like the idea of a swiss style system, but that would be in addition to an general armed populace without need for formal enrollment.
I am pro RKBA, I have been on this forum for years, I've owned a half dozen AK's and far too many others to count. I'm in the process of writing a letter expressing my support for the Second Amendment as an individual right as we speak, and I firmly believe it was meant to protect the common citizen's right to own a military style small arm. I'm not looking for a way to circumvent the Second Amendment so that gun owners can be disarmed, and I am not a troll.

I'm just floating an idea.
I'm really tired of all the distrust between citizens and the government. There has to be something we can do to get us all back on the same team.

Great. We can all start in a lesson in why the people have a right, and a duty, to keep and bear arms.

You are the Militia of the Untied States of America.

12gaugeTim
January 9, 2013, 11:43 PM
Are you meaning something like the system Switzerland uses (to great success, no less)?

HILLBILLY-06
January 10, 2013, 12:19 AM
{QOUTE}:From my point of view, a legitimate militia that actually meets and trains regularly and can be called up by local or state authorities has several advantages.

You organize a malitia now-a-days & your sure gonna get called up alright, but not the way you would have liked to. There's groups been around for many years, labeled as malitia groups, by the same liberal media that's talking all the crap about AWB's. The liberal media loves reporting how the feds infiltrated the groups and made arrests, and siezed weapon & ammo stockpiles, and how they were using "militant terrorist type" training in and on thier compounds.
The government and Liberal media just loves the hell out of the word malitia, so you do what you want, don't let me talk you out of anything. Just do your homework before you start trying go all out with that one. The Liberal media loves to use it against the second amendment folk, everytime one of those groups get in trouble.

goon
January 10, 2013, 12:33 AM
Hillbilly - that isn't the kind of militia I am talking about. Pleaes Google the Militia Act of 1792 and read about it.

Joeschmoe - I'd take a Swiss style system with mandatory enrollment. There are so many advantages and not really and disadvantages that I can see, other than the time we'd all have to spend in training.
Which when you really get to it, is a responsibility of every American citizen anyhow. Freedom isn't free. I'd attend mandatory training.




But on second thought, given the obvious confusion that this thread could cause with those who are unfamiliar with the concept I am speaking of, could the moderators please close and delete this thread?

I don't want to accidentally start a "1776 part II !!!" discussion, because that is not what I am referring to at all and nothing good can come of it.

Kim
January 10, 2013, 12:38 AM
I have always wondered if a State could by a law declare all law abiding adults who are citizens of that State as Militia members. The Federal .Gov can not disarm the militia.

JShirley
January 10, 2013, 12:47 AM
I think it's a thoughtful discussion and should be allowed to continue.

Who is the militia? For those US citizens unfamiliar with the term, it's a good question, and one that probably needs some discussion.

John

Risky
January 10, 2013, 01:23 AM
The establishment of a militia should not be used as an attempt to justify the Second Amendment. That's just twisting the 2A into something that was not intended by the framers in order to satisfy people that don't believe in the framer's ideology to begin with. Because the need for a militia in order to secure the freedom and liberty of the state may arise, the rights of the people to bear arms is protected. It is simple as that.

dirtengineer
January 10, 2013, 02:11 AM
Looks like you are suggesting something at least similar to what exists in Alaska.

http://dmva.alaska.gov/asdf/default.htm

Justin
January 10, 2013, 02:14 AM
From my point of view, a legitimate militia that actually meets and trains regularly and can be called up by local or state authorities has several advantages.

The phrase you're looking for is "Civilian Marksmanship Program."

It was dealt a serious blow by Clinton, and limps on today as a non-profit organization scraping the bottom of the barrel to find the last remaining cases of M1 Garands.

AlexanderA
January 10, 2013, 02:16 AM
The original militia system didn't work too well in the early republic. The idea was that all able-bodied males would be armed (at their own expense) and trained so as to be available to quell foreign invasion or domestic insurrection within each state. (This was particularly important in the South, where they were worried about slave revolts.)

The problem was that most people didn't want to spend the money or the time to fulfill their militia obligations. By the period shortly after the War of 1812, the annual militia musters had turned into occasions of mass public drunkeness; the people were neither disciplined nor well armed. So these occasions were abolished, and well before the Civil War the general militia system was replaced by elite units of Volunteer Militia (such as, for example, the Seventh New York), whose arms were provided through allotments, by state, from the federal government. The arms were kept in the unit armories, and not by the individual members at home. It was these units, by and large, that fought the Civil War.

Trent
January 10, 2013, 11:45 AM
Alexander;

Correct.

But the Militia act of 1903 (which was passed in large part due to the general weakness of the militia AND the Federal forces in the war of 1898), created the national guard, and codified a difference between the organized and unorganized Militia.

In essence, the organized militia (post 1903) is the State forces, which are subject to national jurisdiction in times of emergency. They also must conform, by and large, to federal standards during peacetime (ranks, organization, equipment) so they may be quickly and painlessly subjected to integration by the Federal government for immediate action, should the need arise.

That act ALSO codified the Unorganized militia as every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and up to 65 for people who have had previous military experience. That's the mandatory service; outside this range (or gender), presumably one can still volunteer.

This is technically the "Reserve Militia."

Individual states may codify additional constraints or extensions to this.

Trent
January 10, 2013, 11:46 AM
(Also worth noting is at the SAME TIME, the Civilian marksmanship program was created, further underscoring the role of the private citizen in the Reserve Militia).

AlexanderA
January 10, 2013, 02:12 PM
Physically or mentally handicapped people have never been part of the militia. Go to any large gun show -- you'll see plenty of people in wheelchairs, or morbidly obese people, or really old peole, wandering around. (And that doesn't even count those with "hidden" handicaps or medical conditions.) The militia argument is not going to help such people secure their gun rights. Maybe they need guns more than the average person.

mgmorden
January 10, 2013, 02:26 PM
The answer is no new gun laws - or even a repeal of some of the existing ones. We shouldn't be looking for any concessions to make ANYWHERE as we've already given up far too much already.

joeschmoe
January 10, 2013, 04:42 PM
Physically or mentally handicapped people have never been part of the militia. Go to any large gun show -- you'll see plenty of people in wheelchairs, or morbidly obese people, or really old peole, wandering around. (And that doesn't even count those with "hidden" handicaps or medical conditions.) The militia argument is not going to help such people secure their gun rights. Maybe they need guns more than the average person.
Acutally it has always meant anyone phisically capable of bearing arms. Although call ups to state and federal service may have higher standards (which usually got thrown out when they were desperate), the individuals right to bear arms was never limited to those in perfect health.

""I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution

pendennis
January 10, 2013, 05:11 PM
I haven't seen this mentioned in the thread so far, but the militia was intended to be activated until an army could be raised and trained.

The Founding Fathers didn't want standing armies. They had seen the results of the constant wars in Europe, and the Seven Years War on the American continent. The Continental Army was disbanded in 1783, after the Treaty of Paris.

The Articles of Confederation outright banned standing armies in the several states, unless that state was invaded or on imminent frontier.

However, history bore out the folly of no standing armies. In 1812, lack of a trained army very nearly cost the U.S. its freedom.

We're fraught with examples, from the War of 1812, up through and including the outset of World War II, with a lack of military preparedness.

But Jefferson and others were very clear on the need for the need to keep citizen's armed.

Steel Horse Rider
January 10, 2013, 05:34 PM
The worm turned during the civil war because the state militia served under the command of the state governor and after the first few slaughters of the war governors weren't so excited abpout sending their citizens to be eliminated by the ineptness of the federal officers so the Union was facing a severe shortage of manpower. To answer this a federal draft was created removing control of the militia from the states and creating a federal standing army to fight against the concept of states rights, slavery was just a side issue. The states have never regained their rightful Constitutional powers against the federal government since.

joeschmoe
January 10, 2013, 05:48 PM
No. Even before the first Congress, although they feared a standing army, they also understood the need for a proffessional force. To fight the Indians, protect ports/forts, distant campaigns and long depolyments. The Militia was not practical for these roles. So Congress was given the power to raise armies, but with a limit of 2 years of funding at a time.
The Militia were always in support and as a check on government use/abuse of power. Washington founded West Point to train a proffessional core of officers. He praised and cursed about the volunteer Militia.

State Militia's had no national standards, (even though Congress did have the power to regulate them;Article I).
After the Civil War the Fed was given clearer power to federalize the State Militias to prevent them from being used against the Union.

They have never limited or regulated the individual as Militia. They can't. But governments who try to use the Militia can be controlled by the state and Federal government. They have always had that power. They can regulate the governments use of Militia, but not the individual citizens who stand ready to serve. Big difference.

AlexanderA
January 10, 2013, 06:01 PM
Slavery was the issue that led to the Civil War. States' rights discussions were subsidiary to that. If it hadn't been for slavery, all the other issues could have easily been finessed. The elites in control of certain Southern states didn't want to lose their "property." This has eerie parallels to the current controversy over gun control.

caribou
January 10, 2013, 07:03 PM
"Organized Militia" ='s National Guard, funded as a military unit, ready to fill out the Militarys ranks.

"Unorganized Militia" ='s volenteers of every able bodied man, who own and keep the weapons thay train with, be it in groups, gun schools, or self taught.

BOTH are subject to call up by the govornment, here in Alaska, the govonor has that authority.

True too, you may not have your own 'Army', but you may train with others, as in "assemble peacefully" and keep "well regulated" as in practised.....which is sorta "in tune" with yer guns...

Alaskas Unorganized Militias last call out was in WWII when the Japanese invaded Alaskan islands in the Aleutions.
The gov gave every man up this way "Eskimo Scouts" an M-1917 Enfeild and two bandoleers to arrive at muster with, saved for combat, and each man recived a case of 30-06 to use while Hunting and being out on the land observing, as ammo was scarce in those day for Hunter's, it was a win/win situation that kept knowing eyes peeled for the enemy and Hunters Hunting.

A DEEP Mistrust of an abusive Gov is why the US broke from England and the idea behind the 2nd is to have an arm for Combat, in defence of Country, state and ones self, because if you are defending your self, YOU are in Combat.

OptimusPrime
January 10, 2013, 07:22 PM
Sorry Joe, it's a small matter but there's 2 inaccuracies there. Thomas Jefferson created West Point. And there was a severe distrust of any standing armies after the Revolution, so they disbanded the entire Continental Army.
However, a small faction of Founders raised their hands and said "perhaps we should keep a small force on the frontier, as a guard against any potential invaders from the north coming to our current Capitol of New York." That force, an artillery battalion, was stationed 55 miles north of NYC as a guard. At the fortress of West Point. 18 years later, way after Washington was done, they created the school.

Skribs
January 10, 2013, 07:39 PM
The problem is that most of the powerful antis want us disarmed because of one of the reasons the 2A is there in the first place.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is a real, honest-to-God state controlled militia the answer?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!