Help me understand: Who leads the 2A militia?

[Hunter 08]

It really is up to the states in some regard. When I read Federalist Papers 29 Concerning the Militia, it at least kind of spelled it out. I recall there were like 5 versions of the 2nd Amendment that also spelled it out more clearer kind of in a similar manner that the 1st Amendment does. They chose what we got because they felt like it was short sweet and to the point.

The Militia and depending how they are organized, was to be comprised of all ablebodied men. Well regulated from what I gathered, meant the had similar arms to be used, to have a commonality, similarly to how the military is now. You would have to read each states' constitution to see what it says. With the creation of the National Guard, the old militia was done away with. However, if an old militia was created and the National Guard was called away for one reason or another, the old militia would at least help out in their absence.

These kinds of things are always up to interpretation on an individual level. I would have to read up on Nebraska's constitution again, but I think the militia would be under command of the Governor when the state guard is away. I also believe if you were going to create one in Nebraska you would have to petition the state to do so. Would have to read more into it.

I've had discussions with people much smarter than I am and more well versed in these subjects regarding the militia and how the laws are interpreted. Definitely not something that is taught. A lot of this is dependent on the state you reside in.

It is an interesting topic and one that really deserves further discussion and more time researched into. While it might be antiquated in some regards, it could be helpful in others. Just depending on how its funded and setup.

 

[unspellable]

The National Guard is not the militia. It is equipped with government owned equipment, not personally owned. If the Guard were the militia, the first clause in the 2nd would be meaningless. It's actually closer to being a military reserve.

 

[AlexanderA]

Look at who is described as having the right to keep and bear arms. "Citizens", "the people", "individuals". Not a single mention of a militia requirement or a collective right anywhere. As in every other amendment in the Bill of Rights, "the right of the people" refers to all the people, not an unmentioned subset, such as "militia members".

This dichotomy disappears if we realize that "the militia" is synonymous with "the people" in the 2nd Amendment. Seen in that light, the prefatory clause describes the types of weapons that the public has a right to possess: namely, those weapons that are in common military use. Far from being a nullity (as Justice Scalia would have us believe), the Militia Clause is what gives the 2nd Amendment teeth. Reading the Heller case, it appears that the only thing clearly protected is a pistol in the home. The antigunners can actually cite it in support of an AWB. Heller (and Scalia) are not our friends. It would have been far better for gun ownership if the Court had merely expanded and clarified the 1939 Miller case.

 

[AlexanderA]

With the creation of the National Guard, the old militia was done away with.

The National Guard was late to the party. The "old militia" was actually done away with by the 1820's, when the pre-Civil War volunteer militia units started replacing the mass-levy universal militia. But we don't have to concern ourselves with these subsequent historical developments. An originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would turn the clock back to the year of adoption, 1791, and see the universal militia systems that were on the books at that time.

 

[rust collector]

I believe OP has as good an answer as he is likely to see. In the absence of case law defining militia for 2A purposes, all we can do is expound upon our favorite theory and speculate.