-----Original Message----- >From: Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Jul 9, 2008 1:23 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: Firearms Reg <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Eugene Volokh: Another Early 1800s Source Supporting the >Individual Rights View of the Second Amendment: ..... >The key point, as I have often stated, is that militia is primarily >defense activity and only secondarily those engaged in it, as was common >usage of many words in that era, and that there is no minimum number of >those who may engage in it. An individual is always and at all times at >least a militia of one.
Joe Olson and I pointed out in our A2A amicus brief that ratification period States knew of militias of one -- members of unorganized militias -- and wanted them armed. The militia statutes commonly exempted broad swathes of the populace -- sailors, ferrymen, judges, gov't officials, sometimes lawyers -- from the duty to be enrolled, mustered, and drilled. But the statutes *didn't* exempt from from the duty to be armed. The rationale was presumably that there might come a day when they needed every man, and the unorganized ones might be untrained but at least they'd have a gun and equipment. _______________________________________________ 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.
