> > > > In any case the militia, like the states, are anterior to and > independent of the Constitution and the states. The clauses you quote > above do not establish the militia (just as the Bill of Rights does > not establish any rights). They merely specify the relationship the > congress will have with the militia.
Nobody in this multi-log claimed the militia was established in the Constitution. The clauses I quoted were to support a point I was making -- I think they did. I did claim that the Constitution contains a pretty clear statement about the powers granted the various governments with regard to the militia (delegated powers). There are at least two uses for the word "militia" -- one being that part of the people of able body and not excused which are expected to serve as a reserve military resource for the US and are expected to respond to summons to protect the people when needed and the other being for some part of that part which actually have been called to service and are subject to the authority of the government and subject to that government's discipline. > > "Gee, fellows, we'd really like to go out and oppose the British > troops marching on Lexington and Concord with orders to confiscate > our cannon, but we have to wait for the Constitution to be written > so Congress can call us out..." > Here you see an act which the British authorities and the colonials would agree was an act of rebellion. Such acts are not lawful and are justified only by the results of combat. So, we've left the discussion of lawful actions of militia in relationship to government. I guess I would make what I think might be Rice's point here. These actions will not likely be tolerated by governments -- nor should they be. > I think the solution here is to recognize several militias: the > federal militia, defined by the federal constitution; the state > militias, defined by the state constitutions, and a general militia > constituting the people at large and severally. A person may be a > member of one, several or none. > > I would consider the militias operating at Lexington and Concord to be > in the latter category. > > > > > I suspect that all the "militia" groups really don't have any > > organized armed drills unless the group is run by the state for > > legal reasons. > > It's hard to tell what's "militia drill" and what isn't. If one of the > purposes of the militia is to provide "first responder" defense, then > self defense training is also militia training. > At this point we aren't talking legal issues any more, but political and philosophical ones. Phil Lee > -- > > Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign > Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards > and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email > http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email > > Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB > > _______________________________________________ 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.
