Can anyone form a militia?

[Ferrari308]

The second amendment says

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.

That got me thinking. If government can limit our right to bear arms, can we in turn form militias and get guns that way?

What is a militia? Can we even have them today, or are militia's out of date because of our standing army?

If militias are legal, then why not turn a "shooting club" into a local "county militia"? Ask people to volunteer, tell them they're helping protect the local county in case of a terrorism attack.

How would you form a militia? Would the militia be able to own guns like fully auto M-16's? Would the individual members be allowed to keep the automatic guns, or would the militia have to keep the guns?

Are there any history experts here? How did militia's operate back in the days of George Washington?

 

[geekWithA.45]

For starters, there's a fundamental distinction between "the unorganized militia", which is every free citizen capable of bearing arms, the "organized militia", which comes in many flavors, flowing through various normal channels of civil authority, and a private army.

---------------------------


As far as colonial militias, they were essentially an extension of the town meeting. Periodically, all the men of the town/village/whatever would get together, elect their own officers, drill, inspect gear, and make plans along the lines of "if the Indians attack to the east, me, Fred and Tim will hold the bridge while John and Ted hide the women & kids. Remember, 1 shot for all clear, 2 for danger, 3+ for SHTF".

It wasn't like they could say, OK, now we're going to go conquer Smithville.

-----------------------------

You should probably also be aware that there are a bunch of circuit court conflicting decisions that assert that militia affiliation is/isn't necessary/relevant to the practice of...shall we call it..."enhanced" rkba.

At the end of the day, all the guys who tried the various permutations of those arguments in the 80's to justify machine gun ownership are still in jail.

 

[Ferrari308]

As far as colonial militias, they were essentially an extension of the town meeting. Periodically, all the men of the town/village/whatever would get together, elect their own officers

Interesting. I thought the original militias were just whoever owned a gun and wanted to participate. I didn't know it was an election.

I wonder why local towns don't elect a militia. They could make it an extension of the police force, something like a volunteer police reserve? Would federal laws be violated if a city council voted to organize a volunteer militia like a police reserve?

At the end of the day, all the guys who tried the various permutations of those arguments in the 80's to justify machine gun ownership are still in jail.

That is scary that just owning a gun which is not on an approved list will get a lawful citizen thrown in jail. Can you imagine if the first amendment was treated this way "You can have any book, except these".

 

[lawson]

Ferrari:

There are many books banned from schools and libraries, including many classics that most of us read when we were in school.

 

[Molon Labe]

I formed a militia in December of 2002. Here's the website. Here's a list of past training sessions.

 

[Pilgrim]

If your state bans paramilitary organizations, form a military history study group.

Pilgrim

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Pilgrim touched on the key issue: state law. The various states either address or ignore the issue of militias differently. Some have fairly specific information, while I believe others don't ever cover it. I'm not sure which is better.

Massachusetts has a militia, called the Massachusetts State Guard. I found it through a Google, probably using the term "militia." What I find bothersome about the MA State Guard is that they have chosen to attach themselves to the National Guard as a way of gaining legitimacy. They appear to function more like an extension of the NG, I guess sort of like a NG Auxiliary, rather than an independent milita. The good part is that the state government has obviously blessed their existence. The bad part is that they are too much a part of the MA NG for my comfort.

Down the road a few miles from MA, the Internet tells me that CT has something they call a "militia." It's the Governor's Foot Guard. I have serious reservations about that group. I attended college in Connecticut and the Governor's Foot Guard was the colour guard at my graduation. The entire company was made up of very fat, very old men wearing ill-fitting uniforms from a bygone era. Everything I have ever read about the CT Governor's Foot Guard suggests that they are a ceremonial unit, so I'm not sure what might be gained by calling them the "militia." (Unless the state figures by making the Foot Guard the "militia," they have effectively forestalled any other group coming into existence as a militia in CT.)

Fire up Google. It's been awhile since I did that, but my recollection is that there's even some sort of umbrella organization that keeps track o the various militias in the several states that have them.

 

[gc70]

Mississippi's militia is made up of the National Guard, Mississippi State Guard, and the unorganized militia. The last time I checked, the Mississippi State Guard was made up exclusively of Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels, all of whom had supported the Governor in the most recent election.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I didn't know it was an election.

Er...don't make too much of my choice of words. Perhaps "select" might have been better.

It's more like when you get 20-60 people together who know each other fairly well, having grown up in the same town, arriving at concensus as to who's a leader, who's competent, who has military knowledge/experience, and most importantly, who most people will actually listen to is a pretty straightforward thing.

For example, I could name the short list of men 3-5 men from which the captain would be selected, had the small town I grew up in felt the need to organize the militia. They were each well known and respected, each a veteran, and each competent to the hilt. Given that they would have had the town's trust, and more importantly, the trust of the men they'd be leading, it's even probably they'd have sorted out amongst themselves how their talents could be best applied.

 

[Ieyasu]

http://guncite.com/rrmilitia.html

 

[FullEffect1911]

good article.

 

[confed sailor]

the Ct foot guards sound very similar to the Washington Light Infantry, and Sumter Guard's here in SC.

In both these units histories, they were formed during the 1830's in response to the danger of slave revolt. Both units served with honor in the Mexican War, Civil War (Confederate), Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, and Korea. they were disbanded as military formations, and instead turned to benevolent fraternal societies.

The FTPCC sound more like members of a PAANG unit continuing the traditions of a unit that can trace back its lineage to 1774. Note in the unit's history it was "Federalized" in 1950

Neither of these are truly militias in the sense of the root act. Though I laud the FTPCC for continuing to hold to the fine traditions of a proud unit, that sort of esprit de corps is something all the services should strive for.

 

[TooTaxed]

The Militia Act of 1792, passed May 8, 1792, provided federal standards for the organization of the "Militia".

Paragraph I stated "...That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severallly and respectively be enrolled in the Militia by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside..." The paragraph goes on to say that each citizen so notified shall provide his own musket or firelock and listed equipment, including at least 24 rounds of proper ammunition for the weapon.

(Note: Good reference for refuting those polititions who claim that the 2nd Admendment did not pertain to individual citizens... )

Interesting...this is not currently being done. Was this Act ever formally repealed?

 

[Ieyasu]

The first changed ocurred in 1803, "That every citizen duly enrolled in the militia, shall be constantly provided with arms, accoutrements, and ammunition..."

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Interesting...

The article by Karen L. MacNutt, J. D., is interesting and enlightening in many respects. Her article does, however, fall a little shy of conveying the importance of the unorganized militia in this land of ours. The mere presence of it is a force to be reckoned with, and those who don't believe in the efficacy of the Constitution(ie the left) hold great disdain for it and actively work to disarm it. Regardless of the "bad press" accorded to the militia due to any of these small groups acting in any noble or ignoble fashion, it is the bottom line when it comes to how far the left is allowed to drag this country toward socialism/communism and the far right(way to the right of the Constitution, not those strictly adhering to the Constitution) could drag this country toward anarchy. The militia is a factor - and a factor not to be ignored, hidden, kept quiet, belittled, or besmirched.

No government can long endure without its force of arms to fend off foreign invasion. No free people can long endure without arms to fend off tyranny, dictators, and despots from within, or rise to aid in the defense of the nation from tyranny, dictators, and despots from without.

No, Ladies and Gentlemen, ours is not to take the role of the silent, ugly, caged attack dog, but to be vociferous and bellicose - in order that those who mean us harm will take note, cease, and desist. We are the rams in the flock of sheep. Let the shepherd or his sheep dog get out of hand and they will get the horn, same as the wolf. They need to know it.

Woody

"The United States of America is not up for grabs. Keep your hands off and steer clear. Free people live here - Free people who are determined to stay free. Our rights and freedom will be defended with extreme prejudice." B.E.Wood

 

[Ira Aten]

Constitutionally, Article I, Section VII, describes the organization and appointment and administration (by the States) of the officers selected from within the State, sets out the entire structure for forming an authorized militia.

An to answer your question, yes, we choose when and who, but the method is through representative government. So we are SUPPOSED to elect representatives who have read that Article, and REPRESENT our (the people's) political ambitions as a whole.

We don't do that any more, and therefore, we have a system in which one government employee (a federal judge) can issue a "ruling" that you cannot.

I beleive that is how we messed up our Government. We allowed the lawyers to eveolve our system of government from a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, into a government of lawyers, by lawyers, and for lawyers.

For a government ot be a government BY the people, evetually all things must bend to the will OF the people. Virtually everything you see today coming forth from the Federal courts and Supreme Court, is against what the majority of the average (legal) American citizen wants.

And it is OUR fault. We let them do it.

 

[armoredman]

Arizona, normally one of the leaders in firearms freedoms, does have an interesting clause in the state Consitution, probably from the range wars...

26. Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

26. Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Not authorized, yes. However, not prohibited either! In an emergency, or in the case of a private security company, I believe such actions would not be found unlawful or unconstitutional. Is is simply that individuals or corporations who would organize or hire an armed body of men would not have this section of the Arizona constitution to fall back upon.

I'm sure the State of Arizona has law covering this, though.

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[peoria46]

Militias are formed under the auspices of Posse Comitatus, essentially, the "The Power of the County". This makes the County Sherriff the most powerful law enforcement official in each county. It carries legal authority to act in reinforcement of the local elected government. We are familiar with forms of it from TV. The Posse of western movie fame is exactly that--and why they're called posses As is Barnie Fife deputizing Goober in Mayberry. The idea of a locally-raised armed body was that loyalties would remain local, this to offset a standing army whose loyalty was to a distant government. Some founding fathers had concern that this reasoning was not more clearly spelled out in The Constitution. The result was the supporting clause of the 2nd Amendment--to clearly note that objections had been heard and duly answered.

 

[FreedomKommando]

Forming a "militia" is undoubtedly a good way to get your name on a fedgov watchlist.

I'm not saying don't do it. Just consider the ramifications.

 

[Ira Aten]

FreedomKommando:

You are right about that for sure. Even if you just communicate at all on this site, chances are you are on the watch list.

Keep in mind, those on the watch list will probably not get "trusted traveller status" in our new "North American Alliance" (the European-Union style system of government) agreement signed back on March 23rd, 2005 by George Bush "committing" our country to a governmental partnership with Mexico and Canada.

 

[armoredman]

No, AZ doesn't have anything else governing this that I can find....
We have the Sherrif's Posse in maricopa County, (Ol Joe Arpio), and I think there might be somthing lurking in pima County ordinace for it too, but Demo Dupnik would never use that.