A brief note about the musings in this post: I am not about to make a gun control argument that licensing/registration/etc. are legitimate exercises of federal or state power over the militia of the several states. I *am* of the opinion that the "well-regulated militia" defined in the 2nd Amendment and the Articles of the Constitution has changed so much since the 1903 Dick Act that it endangers the spirit and purpose the 2nd Amendment: that trained, armed, organized state militias composed of the whole of the able bodied citizenry who had custody of arms either privately acquired or assigned to them by Congress under that Constitutional power was neccessary for defense against civil disorder and potential tyranny. We see this in the gun control arguments that the 2nd Amendment is a historical artifact from the days before the National Guard existed.
The argument over whether a citizen's militia or a standing army is the most effective for defense of the nation has been settled in favour of a permanent volunteer army backed by a reserve of volunteer part-time troops, supplemented by a draft in extremis. The position of the US in the world and the complexity of its military needs require it, despite this being exactly the opposite of the Founders' intentions. Unfortunately, this state of affairs is exactly what allows the gun-control lobby to say there is no modern need for a citizenry to own firearms for the common defence. Just the existence of an armed citizenry doesn't make it a militia, without the formal structure the Constitution gives Congress the power to define. I'm going to suggest that recreating the old militia in a modern form would become a legal bulwark against confiscation arguments, and also revive the idea of common defense for the modern day.
My model for a "thoroughly modern militia" comes from two RL examples: the Swiss method of a universal, compulsory citizen's militia and the Kennesaw, GA law about every household being required (unless they "really don't want to"). Yes, I do think such service would be compulsory, not volunteer. That's how the original militias worked, after all. The law in question would enroll every able bodied citizen in a State Defense Force (the state-only militias allowed by Congress), and require anyone who chooses to own arms to train and show themselves capable of using said weapons. Basically, able to hit a man sized target and handle them safely. Essentially similar to a rifle CMP or CCW certification. The failure to achieve this would be through fines for failing a test during muster, NOT denial of firearms ownership. People who choose not to keep arms could have an "alternative service" where they agree to train for other tasks (first aid, communications, etc.)
The mechanisms for avoiding the kind of apathy that lead the original state militias would be financial incentives. Become proficient in marksmanship above a basic level? Get a stipend. School yourself in responding well at a bi-monthly drill session, an additional bonus. Same for schooling yourself in useful specialties like medic training and such. Additional incentives would be free or subsidized ammunition for training, right to use state police or National Guard ranges for target practise, etc. Training would be through the "one Saturday a month" used in existing State Guards (a muster system), and supplemented by training on one's own time through CMP-like arrangents or distance learning techniques (videos, websites, etc.) Funding could be on the basis of...well, the gasoline tax being used to maintain the public highway system. Hunting licenses and (low!) taxes on firearms or ammunition
What would you get? Well, nothing close to the professionalism or training of a National Guard unit. But it would provide, at the very least, an organized group of citizens capable of basic marksmanship and battle drill. One capable of being called up by the governor or a country sheriff (as a deputized posse), or alternatively forming the basis for town or neighbourhood militia units to join up in the wake of a natural disaster or civil disorder in the manner of the "Algiers Milita". And also proof that a citizenry armed with weapons they keep themselves *is* a viable and valuable addition to the security of the Republic.
The argument over whether a citizen's militia or a standing army is the most effective for defense of the nation has been settled in favour of a permanent volunteer army backed by a reserve of volunteer part-time troops, supplemented by a draft in extremis. The position of the US in the world and the complexity of its military needs require it, despite this being exactly the opposite of the Founders' intentions. Unfortunately, this state of affairs is exactly what allows the gun-control lobby to say there is no modern need for a citizenry to own firearms for the common defence. Just the existence of an armed citizenry doesn't make it a militia, without the formal structure the Constitution gives Congress the power to define. I'm going to suggest that recreating the old militia in a modern form would become a legal bulwark against confiscation arguments, and also revive the idea of common defense for the modern day.
My model for a "thoroughly modern militia" comes from two RL examples: the Swiss method of a universal, compulsory citizen's militia and the Kennesaw, GA law about every household being required (unless they "really don't want to"). Yes, I do think such service would be compulsory, not volunteer. That's how the original militias worked, after all. The law in question would enroll every able bodied citizen in a State Defense Force (the state-only militias allowed by Congress), and require anyone who chooses to own arms to train and show themselves capable of using said weapons. Basically, able to hit a man sized target and handle them safely. Essentially similar to a rifle CMP or CCW certification. The failure to achieve this would be through fines for failing a test during muster, NOT denial of firearms ownership. People who choose not to keep arms could have an "alternative service" where they agree to train for other tasks (first aid, communications, etc.)
The mechanisms for avoiding the kind of apathy that lead the original state militias would be financial incentives. Become proficient in marksmanship above a basic level? Get a stipend. School yourself in responding well at a bi-monthly drill session, an additional bonus. Same for schooling yourself in useful specialties like medic training and such. Additional incentives would be free or subsidized ammunition for training, right to use state police or National Guard ranges for target practise, etc. Training would be through the "one Saturday a month" used in existing State Guards (a muster system), and supplemented by training on one's own time through CMP-like arrangents or distance learning techniques (videos, websites, etc.) Funding could be on the basis of...well, the gasoline tax being used to maintain the public highway system. Hunting licenses and (low!) taxes on firearms or ammunition
What would you get? Well, nothing close to the professionalism or training of a National Guard unit. But it would provide, at the very least, an organized group of citizens capable of basic marksmanship and battle drill. One capable of being called up by the governor or a country sheriff (as a deputized posse), or alternatively forming the basis for town or neighbourhood militia units to join up in the wake of a natural disaster or civil disorder in the manner of the "Algiers Milita". And also proof that a citizenry armed with weapons they keep themselves *is* a viable and valuable addition to the security of the Republic.
