Originally posted by Toad
Indeed it is. You seem determined to ignore the facts offered to you here.
BTW, the quote from US Code (The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. ) is from the current US Code. It defines the current meaning of the word militia as used in general and permanent laws of the US. Hope that helps you.
As for your misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment and the subordinate militia clause, I have high hopes that the US Supreme Court will set you right on that one in the near future, although I suspect you would argue with them and tell them they're incorrect if the ruling is for individual right.
Current Law
There is very little controversy about current laws governing the militia. It is generally agreed that all power over the militia is shared between the federal and state governments.
There is no real disagreement that the new militia movement is not authorized by either state or federal law. Members of the new militia have no privileges, rights, duties, or immunities for their action over and above those of other members of society. The only way they can obtain privileges, rights, duties, or immunities would be by laws passed by either the federal or state government. No such laws exist. The new militia are not protected by the militia clauses of the Constitution nor by federal or state law.
Not being protected does not mean forbidden. When these groups do things that don't break any laws, then there is nothing to stop them from doing them. When they do break the laws, there is nothing to protect them.
The only real area of controversy in this entire FAQ is whether or not laws against unauthorized military organization or unauthorized armed parading are constitutional, and if they are constitutional, what behavior constitutes unauthorized military organizations or unauthorized armed parading. These laws were held valid in the nineteenth century by the U.S. Supreme Court and have been held valid by lower courts in the twentieth century.
However, an argument can be made that these laws are unconstitutional or too vague, or that the behavior of the new militia does not violate these laws.
4.6 I suggest you read the United States Code, that provides for the "unorganized" militia, which includes "every able-bodied person between 17 and 45 years of age." We are unorganized by the government, but it does not say we can't organize ourselves. It's still on the books, so it's still legal for us to organize.
A. If there are no laws forbidding such an organization, then you can organize. Remembering that if you want your "unorganized militia"to be true to the definition of those subject/eligible for the militia in 32 USCS 311, you must exclude women from your organized "unorganized militia."
But the result of your organization will not be a militia unit. The result will be a unauthorized voluntary paramilitary organization.
Most states have laws prohibiting or regulating these groups. These laws have been found constitutionally valid whenever tested. The passage of these laws by most states shows some common agreement that these groups are not good.
http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq2.asp
