An unforgotten law?
- Thread starter Red Cent
- Start date
- Status
tyeo098
Member
The Militia act of 1903 also created:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
Anywhere you were planning on going with this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
Anywhere you were planning on going with this?
smalls
Member
Is there a question somewhere in there? A statement?
Texan Scott
Member
He's perhaps pointing out that most of the black powder and reloading forum members are too old to be part of his well-regulated militia.
Red Cent, if the Old Fuff gets wind of this, you are in SO much trouble!
Red Cent, if the Old Fuff gets wind of this, you are in SO much trouble!
Yup, and the law is still on the books. It's also no joke because members of the Unorganized Militia are expected to provide their own arms. In 1934 the Supreme Court ruled in Miller that arms that could be used in a militia context were protected by the 2nd Amendment, but found that based on a lack of evidence otherwise, a sawed-off shotgun didn't meet the description.
On the other hand, a semi-automatic AR-15 unquestionably would...
Yes indeed... All of this is going to get interesting.
On the other hand, a semi-automatic AR-15 unquestionably would...
Yes indeed... All of this is going to get interesting.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
I note that expressly omitted are the National Guard and Naval Militia (Coast Guard?), which are the two groups most ignorant folks believe are the "well regulated militia" of the second amendment. Apparently the "unorganized" militia is sufficiently "well regulated" for federal recognition. Putting this away for future use.
TCB
TCB
I believe that the OP's point is that every able bodied male 17 to 45 is a member of the unorganized militia and that pursuant to U.S. v. Miller the Second Amendment protects the right of private citizens to own military weaponry since as members of the militia they are expected to provide their own arms when reporting for duty.
U.S. v. Miller is very clear: for a weapon to be protected it must be militarily useful. So-called assault rifles, combat shotguns, semi-automatic pistols and, yes, even machine guns and hand grenades fit into that category. Revolvers, IPSC race guns and Ruger 10/22s do not. For SCOTUS to uphold any so-called assault weapons ban it would have to completely disregard and reverse Miller. The Second Amendment is a martial amendment. It was intended to ensure that the average citizen had access to the same type of individual weaponry carried by your average infantryman so that the Militia could muster to repel invasion, suppress insurrection and enforce the laws of the Union. Rifles of a type currently in use by the United States Army are clearly protected.
U.S. v. Miller is very clear: for a weapon to be protected it must be militarily useful. So-called assault rifles, combat shotguns, semi-automatic pistols and, yes, even machine guns and hand grenades fit into that category. Revolvers, IPSC race guns and Ruger 10/22s do not. For SCOTUS to uphold any so-called assault weapons ban it would have to completely disregard and reverse Miller. The Second Amendment is a martial amendment. It was intended to ensure that the average citizen had access to the same type of individual weaponry carried by your average infantryman so that the Militia could muster to repel invasion, suppress insurrection and enforce the laws of the Union. Rifles of a type currently in use by the United States Army are clearly protected.
smalls
Member
Well since its a SCOTUS decision, all we need is for someone with large pockets to encourage the government to adhere to it.
Any takers?
Any takers?
tyeo098
Member
Off topic and pretty much incomprehensible.
- Status
