10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

[jimmy the one]

1. The Multitudes, the Proud, the ....

(b) The classes of the militia are—
..(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
.. (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The 'Unorganized Militia', by definition, fails the 2nd Amendment litmus test, which calls for a 'well regulated' miiita.
'Unorganized', by definition, cannot be 'well regulated'. Thank you very much for bringing this issue to the boards attention.

The Unorganized militia was clearly not what the founding fathers intended in 1791; the Unorg'd militia was first mentioned about 1830's as the militia system envisioned in the militia act of 1792 had devolved into abuse, & the above code was adopted by teddy Roosevelt about 1903 - 1909 circa (Charles Dick act), but has nowt to do with original intent of 2ndA.

The Multitudes - The Proud - The UNORGANIZED!!!!

[hack89]

2. Since the 2A protects an individual right it makes no real different

I agree with my president and party on this view.

[Loudly]

5. How about their inclusion of God and Jerusalem in the platform?

Or will you admit that those were just pandering planks as well?

Without rank and file support.

[hack89]

9. The party knows who votes.

The are not stupid.

[Loudly]

11. Uh huh. Clinging to bibles and guns.

Barack nailed it.

[hack89]

13. Judging by the epic fail in the Senate last year

I can say with absolute certainty that I have nothing to fear from my party when it comes to guns.

Btw - I am an atheist. I have never read the bible.

[flamin lib]

33. You should read the bible.

Not as a religious text but as a reference to so many inferences in other literature and to it's cultural impact. Not a believer myself but with an advanced degree in English and the relevent courses in linguistics and semantics I see the impact the Bible has on our culture and the climate of discourse.

If nothing else, know your enemy . . .

[Straw Man]

41. Not to get all Grammar Nazi on you, ...

Not as a religious text but as a reference to so many inferences in other literature and to it's cultural impact. Not a believer myself but with an advanced degree in English and the relevent courses in linguistics and semantics I see the impact the Bible has on our culture and the climate of discourse.

... but given your advanced degree in English and coursework in linguistics and semantics, you may want to remove the apostrophe from the possessive pronoun its and check the spelling of relevant.

Appeal-to-authority selfies can be tricky.

[flamin lib]

42. You are of course right.

I don't always read my posts as closely as I should as I consider DU a very informal venue. Even when I do this tablet often auto corrects as it posts a message. Usually it corrects it's to its but the grammar logic sometimes goes the other way. To correct the "its" thing requires 4 keystrokes. If the machine generated changes don't greatly interfere with basic communication I don't generally go to the effort to edit and update.

The spelling is all mine tho . . . should at least spell check first.

[Eleanors38]

15. God? Which one?

[jimmy the one]

6. how do you sit

I agree with my president and party on this view.

They (biden/Obama) are endplayed into supporting the supreme court, since they can't be portrayed as going against it, & they could be coyly considering 2ndA as a limited individual rkba, hedging.
How do you sit with the 4 liberal justices on the supreme court 2008 who felt the 2ndA was a militia based right? You do realize you agree with rightwing justices scalia, Clarence Thomas, & alito (+2) on the rightwing nra version of the 2ndA, eh?

How do you sit with the 1939 supreme court miller decision on 2ndA which found unanimously 8-0 (one recusal since just appointed) that the 2ndA pertained to a well regulated militia?

[hack89]

8. Why can't they go against it?

The rebukes run against Roe v Wade every year.

Miller was poor law - the neither the defendant or his lawyers argued their case.

In any case Heller is the law of the land. Every day we see it's positive effect on civil rights in America. It and Windsor are monumental cases that will change America for the better.

[Token Republican]

14. Not exactly

How do you sit with the 1939 supreme court miller decision on 2ndA which found unanimously 8-0 (one recusal since just appointed) that the 2ndA pertained to a well regulated militia?

Not exactly.

Mr. Miller died before the case went to the Supreme Court and nobody argued on his behalf, meaning the goverment's case was unopposed.

The Court said in miller that the 2A protects use of weapons that are commonly used in warfare. Apply this today, it would mean the government could not regulate real military weapons among civilians but that civilian weapons are subject to regulation.

The weapon in Miller was a sawed off shotgun, and they said it was not a common weapon in warfare and therefore subject to regulation. Had Miller been alive, he probably would have pointed out that at the time sawed off shotguns were in common use and therefore outside the scope of government regulation.

But Heller effectively overruled Miller. Its rather ironic too, as Miller in some ways gave more rights than Heller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

[S_B_Jackson]

35. Miller didn't decide anything....

except that the judge in the trial court, Hartsill Regan, should not have made a summary dismissal of the charges and should have conducted a trial on the merits. In dicta, the USSC makes clear that (due to no evidence being presented to them whatsoever) that it was not within their notice that a shotgun having a barrel length of less than 18" had any military utility. One of the issues that would have been pertinent was an evaluation of this issue, a point that the DOJ would have lost given that such weapons - aka trench guns - had been found to be very effective in the most recent war and were part of the normal, customary inventory of the US army.

The DOJ was quite relieved that the eponymous Miller, had died, and that his co-defendant Frank Layton wasn't inclined to fight the issue if he didn't have to....they were only too happy to accommodate him with a plea agreement for no jail time.

[gejohnston]

37. was it DoJ or Treasury?

since it was an IRS function until the ATF became its own agency (from the Misc. Tax Unit of the IRS) in 1972. It was moved under DoJ in 2004.
Yeah I know, I'm being nit picky.

[S_B_Jackson]

38. Yes, the investigation and referral came from the G-Men at Treasury...

but the prosecutors were (and still are) in the DOJ and they were the ones who made the decision to allow Layton to plead out for a two year probated sentence + time already served.

[jimmy the one]

39. miller explained for double double talk talkers

token repub: The Court said in miller that the 2A protects use of weapons that are commonly used in warfare. Apply this today, it would mean the government could not regulate real military weapons among civilians but that civilian weapons are subject to regulation.

Faulty reasoning, for the qualifier was to belong to a well regulated citizens militia, of which there is none today. As well, you're applying 18th century reasoning when the primary firearm was a single shot musket which was prone to misfire in humidity & was not that accurate at range, to today, which is ludicrous.
The court was being case specific about the shotgun, since it was the gun he had.

SBJackson: Miller didn't decide anything... Hartsill Regan, should not have made a summary dismissal of the charges and should have conducted a trial on the merits.. USSC makes clear that it was not within their notice that a shotgun having a barrel length of less than 18" had any military utility.. Miller, had died, and that his co-defendant Frank Layton wasn't inclined to fight the issue if he didn't have to....

Your tapdancing is immaterial to the current argument, for the court gave it's opinion on what the 2ndA meant, as they wrote the following opinion in miller1939:
>>> The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

Just as in the ~1999 emerson case, it didn't really matter if emerson violated the terms of a restraining order his soon to be exwife got against him & possessed a firearm, the details don't matter a whit, it's the rendering of the opinion that the 2ndA gave him an individual right to possess that firearm, which is what is 'important'. Not too many really care if emerson was a gunnut & threatened to kill his wife's current beau, he was just the catalyst which began the subversion of the 2ndA.
... same with jack miller, doesn't matter that he died, doesn't matter that the court was case specific about the sawed off shotgun, doesn't matter about Layton, it only matters that the 1939 supreme court gave their official opinion of what the 2ndA stood for, as explained above.
.. the miller case was 8-0 unanimous - funny how they all signed onto the opinion above, not one of them concerned that future generations might consider that remark an indication of a militia based right.

Jackson: trench guns - had been found to be very effective in the most recent war and were part of the normal, customary inventory of the US army.

Germany had tried to have them banned under hague convention for being inhumane.

tokenR: But Heller effectively overruled Miller..

So then you agree that the miller case was for the militia based rkba, thanks, tell it to the ex presidents Jackson & Johns(t)on.

[sarisataka]

40. Could you explain

that if Miller was based on a militia right rather than individual it wasn't just denied for lack of standing by Miller?

The SCOTUS would not have even needed to rule on the legality of the gun but summarily dismissed Miller's 2A based defense as he clearly was not a member of any militia.

[clffrdjk]

3. What is this militia litmus test you mention?

Do you have any court records that show this test?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Unorganized is a sub-set of the group "militia"

The National Guard + unorganized militia = well-regulated, as proven by the fact 10 USC is regulating -- rather well -- what constitutes the militia.

You grievously misrepresent the Militia Acts. They were not for organizing the militia but for granting the President the authority to call forth the militia without waiting for a specific congressional declaration which, in those days, could allow a threat to metastasize unchallenged for weeks.

[armueller2001]

7. Actually,

during the time period of the founders, the phrase "well regulated" did not mean restricted or controlled as one might think. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. BUT I'M SURE YOU ALREADY KNEW THAT.

I keep my firearms and training in proper working order, therefore I am a well regulated rifleman.

[jimmy the one]

12. cherry picked regulated

Nu-Uni: You grievously misrepresent the Militia Acts. They were not for organizing the militia but for granting the President the authority to call forth the militia without waiting for a specific congressional declaration which, in those days, could allow a threat to metastasize unchallenged for weeks.

I 'grievously' misrepresented the militia acts (two of them), eh? you're hilarious, since I mentioned them in passing without going into detail:
(previous jto): ... the Unorg'd militia was first mentioned about 1830's as the militia system envisioned in the militia act of 1792 had devolved into abuse, & the above code was adopted by teddy Roosevelt about 1903 - 1909 circa (Charles Dick act), but has nowt to do with original intent of 2ndA.

Pls explain which part of all that I'd written about the 2 militia acts was misrepresented so 'grievously'.

Nu-uni: 4. Unorganized is a sub-set of the group "militia"

Right, the predominant part about 98% of americans at some time or another, but the other 'subset' of militia is the well regulated national & state guard system, rather than the unorganized militia.

The National Guard + unorganized militia = well-regulated, as proven by the fact 10 USC is regulating -- rather well -- what constitutes the militia.

What chapter in 2nd Amendment Mythology you get this from?

armmueller: during the time period of the founders, the phrase "well regulated" did not mean restricted or controlled as one might think. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. BUT I'M SURE YOU ALREADY KNEW THAT.

Oh yeah? you cherry picked in Webster's Dictionary of 1828 but does not compute:

Regulate: 1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/regulate

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. "Pls explain which part of all that I'd written about the 2 militia acts was misrepresented"

The part where you suggest the Militia Acts in any made a point about the organizing of the militias. The Militia Acts were to grant the President the authority to call the militias into Federal service, i.e. to confront the Whiskey Rebellion.

Right, the predominant part about 98% of americans at some time or another, but the other 'subset' of militia is the well regulated national & state guard system, rather than the unorganized militia.

The fact that we have a centralized militia such as the National Guard does not invalidate my point as the law I cited in the OP clearly states the National Guard is part of the militia system -- as is the unorganized militia. The Guard and the unorganized militia are both recognized in Federal law. Near as I can tell not even the nuttiest of the anti-gun nutters has gone so far as to argue before the judiciary that this law is unconstitutional.

The organize National and State Guard systems did not exist at the time writing of the 2A. The militias were the exclusive purview of their respective states. The President could call the militias into Federal service but the Federal government did not organize, fund or equip the militias.

In fact, in the Federalist Papers one of the arguments for the federal republic was the fact there was so much disparity between the states that some states carried unequal burdens in matters of national defense. Those state militias were never replaced, disparities and all; the founders simply wanted to allow for the creation of a Federal force. Needless to say, the anti-Federalists were distrusting of a standing army and as a salve to their concerns the Federalists admitted, without argument, that the state militias remain strictly within the power of the states.

If your bizarre interpretation of the 2A were to be accepted then we would have to believe that the Founders wrote an amendment that only permitted the ownership of weapons within a system that would not exist for more than a century after its authoring. This is absurd on its face.

[Token Republican]

10. You presented a cogent, articulate

thoughtful and compelling argument. But you're still wrong. . (Intentional reference to My Cousin Vinny )

But you do touch upon an entirely different subject that goes far beyond the second amendment; the whole originalism schools of thought as to original intent versus original meaning.

Original intent looks to the intent of the founding fathers, while original meaning looks to the meaning of the text within the framework of those who wrote it, words have changed in meaning since the 1700s. Gay and niggardly are two perfect examples of words that no longer mean what they once did.

Your focus is on the phrase well regulated, and claim that this term precludes the inclusion of any unorganized militia.

But your analysis fails both the original meaning and original intent analysis. There's a whole different school of thought than these two, but your argument in your post is an originalism argument.

Well regulated, as meant by 1780 standards, means essentially well functioning, well trained and well equipped. In modern terms, bad ass would be a close approximation. For example, the term regulated appears in this passage from the Journal of the Continental Congress in 1777.

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc034117))

I suspect the Wabash Indians in 1777 were much less organized than our own unorganized militia, yet they were referred to as better regulated.

There's a lot more out there for both 2A and other issues too. Its pretty fascinating regardless as to which side you take on any given issue.

[krispos42]

18. The unorganized militia complies will all legal and operational requirements.

Which are: be a living male between the ages of 17 and 45.

[spin]

21. Since I am approaching 68, I guess I don't qualify to be a member of the unorganized militia. ...

Which leads to the question, "Should I be allowed to own firearms?"

Of course since I am so old and somewhat infirm, I do qualify as one of the weak members of the herd and consequently am a prime target for the predators in our society.

Perhaps I do deserve to be eliminated. Think of all the money our government would save on Social Security and Medicare if people like me were denied the right to own firearms for self protection. That money could be used for the benefit of the younger, healthier and far more productive members of our society.

Making firearm ownership illegal for any male over 45 might be an excellent tactic for gun control advocates to push. They might also suggest that the Constitution does not consider women to be members of the unorganized militia. If the Supreme Court would agree, we might see a considerable drop in the number of firearms in civilian hands.

Nature works on the "survival of the fittest" principal. Perhaps we would live in a much better and far more productive society if we simply allowed the inferior, the infirm and the elderly to be prey.

I suppose it might be wise to add the tag to this post. Some here may feel that I am serious.

[beevul]

20. Irrelevant.

Irrelevant since amendment 2 restricts government from a specific action with no qualifiers.

[NYC_SKP]

25. Hey Jimmy. All it takes is 1 (one) federal law and suddenly you have regulation. We are regulated.

And, as you well know, there are several federal and state regulations that defeat your claim.

That unorganized militia is, actually, pretty well regulated.

what else have you got?

[Angleae]

17. And that's just the federal militia. There's state militias as well.

[ileus]

19. We need to move past PROTECTION of the STATE, and place safety of the INDIVIDUAL FIRST.

I could really give two shits less about my country if I'm unable to protect my person and family FIRST.

In times like we have now being ready for a Cuban invasion is the last thing on my mind, my families safety is always job 1.


Assuring all legally able citizens have access or firearms worthy of defensive use should be top priority of the individual and the state.

[NYC_SKP]

23. I wouldn't be so quick to abandon the very valid (IMO) argument that we are, in fact,

...potentially defenders of the commons against the state.

It's not an unrealistic interpretation, and, given the historical context, more likely than not a key consideration.

[NYC_SKP]

22. Typical gunner move, confusing the argument with facts. Not very cool!

Try some obfuscation, some trashy studies, Bogus findings.

Let's please discuss on a level playing field!

[jimmy the one]

24. read the rest of the (2) militia acts of 1792

I asked: "Pls explain which part of all that I'd written about the 2 militia acts was misrepresented"
Nuc-uni replied: The part where you suggest the Militia Acts in any made a point about the organizing of the militias. The Militia Acts were to grant the President the authority to call the militias into Federal service...

... you're kidding with your question, aren't you? You refer to section 1 of the 'first' 1792 militia act, ignoring what I was referring to & passed 6 days later as the 2nd Militia act of 1792:

(slightly edited): The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792 {approx. 6 months after the 2nd Amendment was ratified}, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia...
I... That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of {18}, and under the age of {45} (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside....
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

III. .. the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adju.... each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates... To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, fou...

IV. That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen;.. each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse:.. to each company of artillery, one captain, 2 lieutenants, 4 serjeants, 4 corporals, 6 gunners, 6 bombardiers, one drummer..

VI. That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all publick reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution, and perfecting, the system of military discipline established by this Act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that may be required; and to explain the principles of which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the state, returns of the militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and discipline:

VII. That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of {29} March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline.
... IX. That if any person whether officer or solder, belonging to the militia of any state,... be wounded or disabled, while in actual service, he shall be taken care of an provided for at the publick expense.

[jimmy the one]

26. fractured reasoning

Nuc-Uni: The fact that we have a centralized militia such as the National Guard does not invalidate my point as the law I cited in the OP clearly states the National Guard is part of the militia system -- as is the unorganized militia. The Guard and the unorganized militia are both recognized in Federal law... not even the nuttiest of the anti-gun nutters has gone so far as to argue before the judiciary that this law is unconstitutional.

I don't argue they are currently unconstitutional, I argue the unorg'd militia is not what the founding fathers/Madison intended, that being a well regulated militia. The 2ndAmendment did not intend for any 'UNorganized militia' to be - their actual 2ndA vision has become obsolete outdated & worthless, as pointed out by teddy Roosevelt circa 1903: The {1792 militia} statute was repealed in 1901.. in that year President Theodore Roosevelt declared: "Our militia law is obsolete and worthless." The process of transforming "the National Guard of the several States" into an effective fighting force then began. https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/496/496.US.334.89-542.html (link used for quote only)

nuc-uni: The organize{d} National and State Guard systems did not exist at the time writing of the 2A.

Playing hardball now, eh? That above, is my point. The militia act of 1903 (aka dick act) was an alteration of the intent of the founding fathers. The dick act viewed the 'well regulated militia' system, as envisioned by founding fathers, as worthless & obsolete, & revamped the militia code into the national guards & the reserve unorganized militia. Ergo, the unorganized militia has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights provided by the 2nd amendment.

nuc-uni: If your bizarre interpretation of the 2A were to be accepted then we would have to believe that the Founders wrote an amendment that only permitted the ownership of weapons within a system that would not exist for more than a century after its authoring. This is absurd on its face.

What's absurd on it's face is your specious & fractured reasoning. The original intent of the founding fathers was clear, to provide for a well regulated militia, as explicitly written in the 2ndA. You speciously argue from the individual rkba heller decision as if that weren't a subversion of the bill of rights 2nd amendment. In the 'real world', not your revisionist history, Madison intended for a right to bear arms for common defense (as originally in Virginia), & in that context provided that bearing arms could not be infringed upon. Had founding fathers wanted an individual rkba disconnected from militia service they would have simply written 'The right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed', but they hinged it upon the militia.
People can own arms today without believing in any 2nd amendment. I renounced the stupid 'right' a year ago & I could still go out & buy a gun after passing a bg check, no 2ndA check needed. Real men don't need no 2nd amendment.

Furthermore, the unorganized militia is a JOKE. Nobody ever meets, no structure, no pay grades, no pay, no mobilization points, no leadership, just the predominance of American warm bodies most all of which wouldn't show up (or last long) if called up for actual militia. Ask most people & they won't even know they are in it or were in it, because it's a JOKE. ... here is a thesaurus listing of synonyms for 'unorganized' pick out your best (my Roget's thesaurus at home has 'aimless' as an entry, my favorite!!:

unorganized, thesaurus entry: .. untidy.. all over the place chaotic cluttered confused dislocated disordered jumbled messed up messy mixed up scattered scrambled sloppy unarranged unkempt unsystematic http://thesaurus.com/browse/unorganized

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. .

The {1792 militia} statute was repealed in 1901.. in that year President Theodore Roosevelt declared: "Our militia law is obsolete and worthless." The process of transforming "the National Guard of the several States" into an effective fighting force then began. https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/496/496.US.334.89-542.html (link used for quote only)

And the law cited in the OP is the law that replaced the militia act of 1792 and it operates in tandem with the laws founding the National Guard so obviously the people who wrote those laws felt a need to define and give their imprimatur to the unorganized militia.

What's absurd on it's face is your specious & fractured reasoning. The original intent of the founding fathers was clear, to provide for a well regulated militia, as explicitly written in the 2ndA.

Okay. So let's start a national program where every person eligible for militia service receives a voucher good for the purchase of 1 semi-automatic/automatic long gun whose operating and reliability characteristics satisfy government requirements based on potential need.

I suppose one thing to consider would be: Who, exactly, would be eligible for such a voucher?

I know! How about we choose all able-bodied men and any women who might have military training?

Hmmm. But, you know, there is a certain age when people are too young and perhaps too old to have practical value.

I know! Let's just say between the ages of 18 and 45.

Weird. That kinda sounds like the law cited in the OP.

But anyway, if the government defined operational and reliability requirements for arms to be carried by the then that would satisfy the well-regulated requirement. Since the requirement would make a suitable weapon cost a fair amount of money the voucher could be used to offset the cost. You would support that to bring the law into line with your interpretation of the 2A, wouldn't you? Or are you just trying to scrap entire constitutional amendments based on technical issues?

the unorganized militia has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights provided by the 2nd amendment.

Neither does the National Guard but you aren't arguing to scrap that, you're arguing to give the government a monopoly on lethal force and THAT is decidedly anti-constitutional.

Furthermore, the unorganized militia is a JOKE...blah blah blah

And yet, here we have this modern law defining the militia and its component groups.

[jimmy the one]

28. sleeping giants & couch potatoes

nuc-uni: .. the law cited in the OP is the law that replaced the militia act of 1792 and it operates in tandem with the laws founding the National Guard so obviously the people who wrote those laws felt a need to define and give their imprimatur to the unorganized militia.

Who cares? who cares if Charles Dick thought the unorg'd militia was a sleeping giant rather than predominantly couch potatoes as they devolved into?; ... the militia act of 1903 which you cite above ('those laws') was not what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the 2nd amendment. There was no constitutional basis in 1791 for an 'UNorganized' citizens militia, but rather for a well regulated citizens militia, two concepts which are diametrically opposite.
The dick/militia act of 1903 effectively superimposed a new more workable militia system over the one the founding fathers envisioned, but the militia act of 1903 with it's UNorganized militia cannot in any way be considered an authorization for the unorganized militia to possess the 2nd amendment's right to keep & bear arms. Nor vice versa can the 2ndA protect any rkba of the unorg'd militia.

NucUni: So let's start a national program where every person eligible for militia service receives a voucher good for the purchase of 1 semi-automatic/ ................. Weird. That kinda sounds like the law cited in the OP.

Gibberish.

nuc-uni: Neither does the National Guard but you aren't arguing to scrap that, you're arguing to give the government a monopoly on lethal force and THAT is decidedly anti-constitutional.

Hate to break this to you but the govt has a monopoly on the most lethal of military force, hands down, & all the armed unorg'd militiamen couldn't do diddly to stop them. I didn't propose this end result (as you suggest), it just transpired over the course of time. And if the 2ndA was disregarded people could still own guns - you create a false dilemma that the govt would corner the lethal force arena if 2ndA was abolished.
... btw, the current armed unorganized militia causes a good part of 7,000 gun murders per year & about 15,000 gun suicides, while the big bad lethal govt usually loses a few people domestically to helicopter crashes & other accidents.
..... The Nat Gd is a well regulated militia, consisting of citizens but not what the FF intended, rather it is a well reg'd select militia (as envisioned by alex Hamilton & geo Washington), which evolved over time.

nuc-uni: And yet, here we have this modern law defining the militia and its component groups.

Modern? it's based on a law written over 100 years ago. The automobile was a novelty then. Dick likely didn't want to exclude most all americans from the militia, clinging to remnants of the old system.
.... I don't argue with the militia act/law/code of 1903 creating the well regulated Nat Gds, fine, but the unorg'd militia is as obsolete & worthless as the 1792 militia system had become. It's only been 'mobilized' once in it's history, in 1942 in Oregon due fear of Japanese invasion hysteria on the west coast after pearl harbor, then only ~5,000 showed up, mostly wwI vets - a mere 3 battalions. I doubt any governor today in his right mind would deputize, mobilize & arm his unorganized militia, for fear of causing far more trouble than solving.

No counter to your claim that the 1792 militia act did not provide for the organization of the militias?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. Ya know, I was going to answer you point-by-point but let's just cut to the chase.

Just because you have silly little mania doesn't create a legal obligation on my part. Humanity has not evolved beyond its petty ways. People are not suddenly immune from the temptations of power and greed. People still need to defend themselves. Government does not protect and too often it harms.

The law is there, the constitution is there and even if both never existed it is still my inherent right to defend myself, my family, my home and my land. NOTHING you say can change that and no matter how many times you say argue to the contrary and regardless of how much force -- rhetorical or otherwise -- you employ I will ignore your demands. I will not obey you or anyone like you because you're foolish at best and diabolic at worst. You are powerless over me.

Learn to cope with the fact that that your words are useless; meaningless.

So now what?

[jimmy the one]

31. no real reply eh?

nuc uni: People still need to defend themselves. Government does not protect and too often it harms.....
The law is there, the constitution is there and even if both never existed it is still my inherent right to defend myself, my family, my home and my land.

Juvenile, no real reply, just tapdancing about the inherent right to defend oneself, which is a separate concept from the general 2nd Amendment issue -- the right to self defense existed for thousands of years prior to the 2nd amendment ever being created.

nuc uni: People still need to defend themselves. Government does not protect and too often it harms. NOTHING you say can change that and no matter how many times you say argue to the contrary and regardless of how much force -- rhetorical or otherwise -- you employ I will ignore your demands

This is a typical progun ploy seen, conflating the right to self defense with the 2ndA right to keep & bear arms, trying to make it seem that by supporting a militia based 2nd amendment one is denying people the right to defend themselves.
Grow up please.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. You kept speaking about the impotence of the unorganized militia

Tell us now about the potence and efficacy and morality of what your would do about people who just don't give a flyin' flip about what you think and will continue to live their lives in site of you.

The fact is: You ain't gonna do squat. The law is against you, the constitution is against you, USSC decisions are against you, precedent is against you and at the end of the day nobody cares what you think and you are impotent to do anything about it.

Whatcha gonna do, big boy?

Nothin'?

I thought so.

[jimmy the one]

34. growing up is not an option

nuc uni: The fact is: You ain't gonna do squat. The law is against you, the constitution is against you, USSC decisions are against you, precedent is against you and at the end of the day nobody cares what you think and you are impotent to do anything about it.

What you say is aggregately & separately a misleading half truth or your subjective opinion.
... The constitution is not against me. It clearly stated a 'well regulated militia' in the 2ndA. That wayne lapierre & alan gura & the gunnutted crowd subverted the meaning & intent through manipulation & deception is no proof whatsoever that the constitution is against me, as evidenced by the historical interpretation of 2ndA as a militia based rkba prior to this century. That they hoodwinked the American public that the 2ndA means you can own a gun & gun control means you can't, is as much a tribute to American rightwing gullibility as anything else. Are you proud of this ****?
... RECENT supreme court decisions went progun, both 2008 & 2010 by a 5-4 RIGHTWING REPUBLICAN margin. 1939 Miller decision & previous scotus 2ndA rulings generally went pro militia rights, altho some ambiguous. Are you proud to be supporting the republican point of view on this issue? are you so proud to be a puppet for the national rifle association? et al extremer rightwing gun groups? are you so proud background check bills bounced thanks to republican legislators?
.. the law is not 'against me', just as a few years back some young white males were apprehended in possession of illegal firearms & they claimed their right to 'bear' them since they were part of the 'unorganized militia' & thus legal beagles - they were arrested & thrown in jail & as far as I know convicted or plea bargained.
Certainly there are democrat gunnuts, quelle surprise, but they are the ones who adhere to those points of view.

nu-uni: Whatcha gonna do, big boy? Nothin'? I thought so.

I guess 'growing up' is not an option, eh, nuke-uni?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. "subverted the meaning & intent through manipulation & deception is no proof"

That's just you typing.

I guess 'growing up' is not an option, eh, nuke-uni?

Again, what are YOU going to do? The grabbers can't even get past 40% in polls on DU. Whatever you're hoping to see happen isn't happening in your lifetime.

[jimmy the one]

29. immersed in mythology

hack: Miller was poor law - the neither the defendant or his lawyers argued their case.
token republican (1)Mr. Miller died before the case went to the Supreme Court and nobody argued on his behalf, meaning the goverment's case was unopposed.
(2) The Court said in miller that the 2A protects use of weapons that are commonly used in warfare.
(3) The weapon in Miller was a sawed off shotgun, and they said it was not a common weapon in warfare and therefore subject to regulation..

All your expedient reasons don't matter, for the 1939 supreme court opinion specifically regarding the 2nd amendment read as follows:
.. The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/millervus.html

This was an 8-0 unanimous supreme court ruling (one recusal due recent apptmt to scotus), they all thought their wording here was proper & none objected. Had they felt 2ndA was an individual rkba why wouldn't one have objected to the above wording - 'Whoa fellow justices, future generations will think we ruled for a militia based rkba'.
.. In contrast the 2008 heller decision was a politically based 5-4 ruling, & Scalia's opinion was in part authored by the modern day far rightwing gun lobby.

tokenR: But Heller effectively overruled Miller. Its rather ironic too, as Miller in some ways gave more rights than Heller.
hack: In any case Heller is the law of the land. Every day we see it's positive effect on civil rights in America..

Boy you two are really immersed in the 2nd amendment mythology.

PS: in wwI Germany banned sawed off shotguns as too inhumane, & wanted the hague convention to ban them as well, but didn't occur.