RTH10260 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:56 pm
Mr brolin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:57 am
Hate to correct but the militia, both organised and unorganised are a CURRENT legally defined and accepted entity.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?pat ... al%20Guard.
246. Militia: composition and classes
(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.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, §311; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered §246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, §1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
I am trying to remember if Mr B did already once present this definition on the lost TFB
Is this the complete "well regulated" definition to comply with the 2nd A? Cause this IANAL reads it as everyone older than 45 (age, not the former guy) would lose the right to bear arms.
Is there a place in the law books that speaks more about the unorganized militia?
How did SCOTUS tweek the daily use or personal armory to match the "unorganized" mob?
Take it up with the Supreme Court, that has in a number of cases over the many, many decades ruled that the unorganised militia consists of anyone (citizen and I believe permanent resident) that can bear arms.
The US Code definition is a two partner, the first being the "organised" with the age range and a part of the National Guard and then the second part the "unorganised" which is everyone else, no affiliations or age requirements
Most recent and exhaustive rulings in Heller v DC
The Supreme Court held:[46]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
Until such time as the SCOTUS changes its mind AND has an on point case AND rules the definition otherwise OR a Constitutional Amendment is drafted and passed, it is what it is.
x4
We went for a ride,
