Philip wrote: > I presume the states have similar powers to call forth the > militia for state service. I doubt the militia is empowered > to call itself into service.
I wonder if this is true. If one of the conceived roles was to provide a check against abuse of power, would not that apply to abuse from _any_ level of government? I understand that per Art 1. Sec. 8 the intent was as a sate check against federal abuse, but would the founders have also perceived the militia a check against state abuses? (moot point really given the functional reality -- that an armed people can be a control mechanism regardless of what those holding power may like). > Remember, we are speaking of two kinds of "militia". One > militia is the citizens who may do things such as make > citizen arrests when they observe crimes. They are the > unorganized militia -- the people. My question above . . . > USSC in PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) > made pretty clear that no band of people may organize and arm > itself and call itself a militia even for such innocent > efforts as marching in a parade. Which confounds me. Original intent had all free, white, adult males as part of the "militia", organized and otherwise. How can that be the definition, and yet some small subset of that group not be recognized as the same (assuming the previously cited "unorganized" variety)? ----------------- Guy Smith Author, Gun Facts www.GunFacts.info [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
