Militia.

This is coolbert:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason

This is coolbert: A number of years ago now, I was having a discussion with another person about assault weapons. During the discussion I mentioned that I owned an assault weapon. This was a Smith & Wesson Model 459 autoloading pistol. A handgun having a high capacity, fifteen [15] round magazine. A very nice weapon

For the purposes of this blog entry, an assault weapon is generally defined as a firearm having any of these characteristic features:

* A high capacity magazine.

* Pistol grip stock [for a rifle].

* Night sights.

* Bayonet lug.

* Folding stock.

Federal legislation defines an assault weapon somewhat, but only slightly, differently:

"An example of assault weapon legislation is the Federal 1994 Crime Bill.
The bill in part outlaws new civilian manufacture of certain semi-automatic
assault weapons. It also prohibits new civilian manufacture of
"large capacity ammunition feeding devices" declared certain weapons
as assault weapons, and states a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon
if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:

* A folding or telescoping stock
* A pistol grip
* A bayonet mount
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
* A grenade launcher."

I was then asked, "what reason did I have to OWN an assault weapon".

My answer was, "to properly perform my militia duties, if called upon".

[this reply of mine was met with a chuckle!!].

Firearm ownership in the U.S. is of course intrinsically tied to the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

Amendment Text Annotations

"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."

[please note that Militia and Arms are in capital letters. Issignificanceificane in that??]

Militia. A term that is bandied about by all sorts of persons who are actually unaware of what the militia consists of, or what is it's role.

Fortunately, for us, the militia is carefully defined by U.S. Code Ten, the law of the land.

"TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311

311. Militia: composition and classes


Release date: 2005-07-12

(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."

Able bodied men, between ages of 17 and 45.

Citizens and persons who have declared their intention of becoming a citizen.

And female members [female commissioned officers??] of the National Guard.

Pretty straight forward, isn't it!!

NONE of this is rocket science!! [persons who hate the 2nd Amendment make it seem as if it is rocket science!!]

At the time of the "Founding Fathers", the military was recognized to consist of:

A standing army - - today called the Regular forces.

A select militia - - today called the National Guard and the Reserves.

The militia - - all the rest, as defined by U.S. Code Ten.

Defining exactly with gritty specificity all the pertinent words of the 2nd amendment, we find that:

Keeping arms is having the weapons, provided by the militiamen themselves, in their possession. But not on their person UNLESS performing militia duties.

Bearing arms is having the weapons on their actual physical person when performing militia duties.

Arms are succinctly defined by:

Thomas Jefferson, according to whom, and who can argue with him [??], arms as being mentioned in the 2nd Amendment are to be "in no way inferior to those carried by the COMMON soldier!!"

That is quite clear too, is it not!!??

What are we talking about here??

If the common soldier carries a flintlock musket, so may the militia man.

If the common soldier carries a percussion fired muzzle loading rifle, so may the militia man.

If the common soldier carries a bolt action rifle, so may the militia man.

If the common soldier carries an assault weapon, so may the militia man.

This obviously precludes persons from owning or carrying a 20 mm cannon, or an automatic weapon, a sawed-off shotgun, a bazooka, or any other weapon in excess of what the common soldier carries.

The concept of the militia is to place at the disposal of the local sheriff of any respective COUNTY a body of manpower that can be quickly be organized as an ARMED FORCE for the purpose of:

Suppressing civil disorder [riot], insurrection, excessive criminality.

Acting as a quasi-police force in time of disaster.

Repelling external aggression or invasion.

OR acting against despotic or tyrannical rule by a central government [Washington D.C.]

Such would be the many faceted POTENTIAL duties of the militia.

"The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

For those of you that think the militia is an antiquated, out-moded, ludicrous, perhaps even quaint concept, just think of Vietnam and Afghanistan!!

On the other side of the equation we have Warren Burger.

NO LESS a figure than Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was quoted as saying that the 2nd Amendment is a HOAX being perpetrated on the American people!! I am not exactly sure what the Chief Justice meant when he said this? Perhaps he was speaking of the IMPLEMENTATION of the amendment and the understanding of same by the common man of the current era!!?? I am just not sure. Surely the Chief Justice does not also think that other amendments to the U.S. Constitution are also a hoax?? I hope NOT!!

My own perception of the militia is that it is as valid now as it was two hundred years ago. And will be still valid two hundred years from NOW! It will always be a valid concept!!

[persons who are anti-gun and hate EVERYTHING about the 2nd amendment are often fond of saying that the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution is rightly called the 1st amendment because it is SO important and guarantees rights so essential to a functioning democracy. Those same persons would NEVER admit that the 2nd amendment MUST then be more important than the 3rd, 4th, or 5th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Such a thought would never EVEN OCCUR to them!!]

[when the ACLU some time ago distributed a pamphlet listing the rights of Americans, they DID NOT list the right to keep and bear arms as being an essential right. It was NOT EVEN mentioned AT ALL!!??]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia?

Well, know you KNOW!!


coolbert.