DoJ on Heller...

[bustr]

According to the USC, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311

Section 311. 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.

_{U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04}

I beleive bing each of us not in active duty, national gaurd, organised militia, or naval militia is covered under:

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
      the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
      Naval Militia.

But bing by now in the thread you appear to be acting obtuse in the same manner as placing a potato in someones car exaust for your own entertainment factor at their expence. You have kinda devolved yourself from an interesting read to the same catagory as my neighbors teenage son who while mooning someone with his pants around his ankles and got used by a large dog in a public place..............he's the pride of our neighborhood now.......

[Bingolong]

is the word "unorganized" confusing to you?

 no is the word "Member" hard for you to understand?

[Bingolong]

I beleive bing each of us not in active duty, national gaurd, organised militia, or naval militia is covered under:

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
      the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
      Naval Militia.

But bing by now in the thread you appear to be acting obtuse in the same manner as placing a potato in someones car exaust for your own entertainment factor at their expence. You have kinda devolved yourself from an interesting read to the same catagory as my neighbors teenage son who while mooning someone with his pants around his ankles and got used by a large dog in a public place..............he's the pride of our neighborhood now.......

would you say there are no rules for a militia buster?
Whats you membership ID buster? where is your militia registered buster? who is your commanding officer Buster?

A "well regulated militia" are you saying there are no regulations in a militia?

[bsdaddict]

no is the word "Member" hard for you to understand?

not particularly, especially considering that paragraph (a) is right there to clear it up...

[Bingolong]

not particularly, especially considering that paragraph (a) is right there to clear it up...

 oh yeah what is the virginia defence force or the texas militia then?

http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia91.html

[bustr]

Bing,

So you are throwing out the composition and classes in the definition and only accepting (b) part (1)? Is (b) part (2) there only to fill in space?

I doubt the SCOTUS is this narrow minded to the constitutions definition of "the right of the people". Escpecially as Laz pointed out many states would not join the Union if thier constitutions definition of "the right of the people" was not held to mean exactly an individual pre existing right.

The constitution does not grant rights to the people as many misconstrue. It "identifies" pre existing ineliable rights of "the people" and defines the limitations on the governments powers granted by "the people". At the time of the writing of "A well regulated militia" the militia was not an entity of the federal government such that it's power and self interests superceeded the right of the people to keep and bare arms as they saw fit.

"The security of a free state" cannot mean an area of land in a federal union since each STATE had its own constitution and the federal government was a union of the states. So it's the interest of all the people to have a free state which can only be insured if the people can protect as individuals their own lives. The pre existing right of each human being to protect their lives from anything animal, man or government. No milita needed since the the STATEs and Union exist only because of human beings by the virtue of thier pre existing rights.

This whole thread seems to hinge on wheather today the government's interests and needs have evolved to the point that the following concepts as understood 250 years ago "the right of the people" and pre existing natural rights of each human being cannot exist in the face of governments that have promoted their people granted powers to unassalliable rights. 

[Bingolong]

Bing,

So you are throwing out the composition and classes in the definition and only accepting (b) part (1)? Is (b) part (2) there only to fill in space?

I doubt the SCOTUS is this narrow minded to the constitutions definition of "the right of the people". Escpecially as Laz pointed out many states would not join the Union if thier constitutions definition of "the right of the people" was not held to mean exactly an individual pre existing right.

The constitution does not grant rights to the people as many misconstrue. It "identifies" pre existing ineliable rights of "the people" and defines the limitations on the governments powers granted by "the people". At the time of the writing of "A well regulated militia" the militia was not an entity of the federal government such that it's power and self interests superceeded the right of the people to keep and bare arms as they saw fit.

"The security of a free state" cannot mean an area of land in a federal union since each STATE had its own constitution and the federal government was a union of the states. So it's the interest of all the people to have a free state which can only be insured if the people can protect as individuals their own lives. The pre existing right of each human being to protect their lives from anything animal, man or government. No milita needed since the the STATEs and Union exist only because of human beings by the virtue of thier pre existing rights.

This whole thread seems to hinge on wheather today the government's interests and needs have evolved to the point that the following concepts as understood 250 years ago "the right of the people" and pre existing natural rights of each human being cannot exist in the face of governments that have promoted their people granted powers to unassalliable rights. 

Buster,

Why is there a definition of the militia? Because in the 2nd it says "A well regulated Militia"

Most of the legal militias of today, have set training, are registered, and have a code of conduct. It says "members" of a militia. They are registered militias left, that are not the NG.  It says very specifically member of "unorganized militia" which are not the NG.

Which way do you guys want it you either follow the progression of the militia or you join one registered militias that are left.
I can't help it that "the People" have decided, in most states,  not to pursue their right to militia. Which they clearly have and are able to be members of... and be well regulated.

and no the age limit still apply
It's very clear to me

[AKIron]

It's very clear to me

I think the folks who have been making the laws the last few decades agree with your point of view. I think they are about to lose all the ground they have worked so hard on for so long. The constitution and our liberty will prevail. 

[Bingolong]

I think the folks who have been making the laws the last few decades agree with your point of view. I think they are about to lose all the ground they have worked so hard on for so long. The constitution and our liberty will prevail. 

 I hope your right

[bustr]

Membership in a militia was used in the pre statement as a general and well understood construct of the period in which the line was written to describe the definition of arms to keep the people equal to the current militairy so they could protect themselves from a government gone bad.

It was an imagry construct that all persons of the time understood for itself and so not to allow the government then or in the future to redefine the meaning of "arms" down to the point of obscurity, effectivly disarming the people in case the government went bad.

In reality this is what governments in the U.S. have accomplished with gun ban laws like D.C.'s and why the case is going to the SCOTUS.

The Militia statement is used as a yard stick definition for any given point in time of what "arms" are in the statement and recognition of "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."

You don't touch on the meaning of "the security of a free state." That was a polite way to not point fingers at any specific entity, but still was understood as the conditon that all men had the right to protect with thier own arms. Whomever the agent of destruction and aggression might be from a single aggressor up to a government gone bad. State in this case is not "The State". It is a "state of freedom" which they had just fought a war for against "The State", which in some cases the crown refered to itself as.

[lazs2]

bingie... I think I understand what a "member" of something is..  I am a member of the human race... I am a member of the white race.. I am a member of the the AH community.. I have no commanding officer nor am I paid nor are there any rules that require a leader.

even by the 1903 militia act.. the unorganized militia was recognized as valid..  there is no pay nor do they carry any card or even have leaders normally.   What part of "unorganized" do you not understand?

If you want to get into the meaning of words.. then it is you who will lose.  In order for any of your points to valid you would need to twist the meaning of words then in use and ones now in use.

you could not say, change the meaning of the word "arms" by an act of congress to mean say "flowerpots" and then say the second only protected the rights of people to keep and bear flowerpots.

I am still waiting for the 18th century definition of "collective rights"  I would also like to see the 18th century meanings for the words "the people" and "the state" .

lazs

lazs

[bustr]

If you argue the language of the constitution from the point of construct and meaning of the 21st century, the constitution becomes what ever an eloquent liar(lawyer\politician\professor) wants it to be. To many of us 250 years later the constitution has no common frame of meaning other than what our chosen leadership tells us it means. Ideologicly we choose the leaders who reflect how we want the world to operate as opposed to what our laws say. That's been the ongoing erosion of the constitution.

If you go through the very painfull process of learning the american language and writing style from 1776 and how it was used to communicate the hard learned realities of governments abuses of the people in that time. You would understand from the shared common experineces and imagery the well chosen language of the constitution and it's amendmants to protect the people from the government.

In 250 years the natural rights of the people as identified by the constituion for protection have not changed. The constitution is today acting as the warning and description of what people look like who want to deprive their fellow humans of their pre existing natural rights. The constitution was written in the language and imagery of 1776 to curb the government from infringing on the pre existing natural rights of We the People.

It was not written as the rule book of how We the People will submit to the Rule of the Government.

[bsdaddict]

As I've said before, IMO this militia debate is a red herring.  Lazs is on the right track by bringing up "collective rights", that's what this boils down to.  Take guns out of the equation, think rights in general.  The right to free speech, is that dependent on belonging to any group?  The right to a fair trial, is that based on group membership? 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  "self-evident", as in you'd have to be an idiot to not understand.  "All men", as in everyone, not some men, depending on what group they belong to.  "endowed by their Creator", as in God gave 'em to us.  "unalienable", as in they can't be taken away. "Among these", as in here's a couple examples, but there's more.

My opinion is that there are no such things as collective rights.  Groups don't have rights, individuals do.  Take guns out of the equation and the same argument stands.  Minority rights?  No such thing.  The minority has the same rights as the majority, not because they're the majority or a minority, but because they're individuals.  Gay rights?  Same argument.  Womens rights?  Same argument.  None of these "groups" have rights, the individuals that compromise said groups do.

[lazs2]

but bingie and his ilk are trying to instill a whole new meaning to the constitution by saying that it was not a document the pointed out god given inalienable rights but.. a suggestion for a good socialist society.   He does this by introducing a concept into it that did not exist at the time.. that of "collective rights" or..  a form of collective rights that is no right at all... 

The words "state" and "people" were clearly understood tho.. if one was meant over the other then it was used.

They didn't use "people" when they meant "state" and they sure as hell did not mean "state" when they said "people".

98% of Americans understand this.

lazs

[Bingolong]

If you argue the language of the constitution from the point of construct and meaning of the 21st century, the constitution becomes what ever an eloquent liar(lawyer\politician\professor) wants it to be. To many of us 250 years later the constitution has no common frame of meaning other than what our chosen leadership tells us it means. Ideologicly we choose the leaders who reflect how we want the world to operate as opposed to what our laws say. That's been the ongoing erosion of the constitution.

If you go through the very painfull process of learning the american language and writing style from 1776 and how it was used to communicate the hard learned realities of governments abuses of the people in that time. You would understand from the shared common experineces and imagery the well chosen language of the constitution and it's amendmants to protect the people from the government.

In 250 years the natural rights of the people as identified by the constituion for protection have not changed. The constitution is today acting as the warning and description of what people look like who want to deprive their fellow humans of their pre existing natural rights. The constitution was written in the language and imagery of 1776 to curb the government from infringing on the pre existing natural rights of We the People.

It was not written as the rule book of how We the People will submit to the Rule of the Government.

What about laws and bills approved after the constitution about the militia do they not apply? Or after the militia act of 1792? nothing? lots of law in the 1800's on the militia.
There is a very long paper trail on the militia starting around 1790 matter fact thousands of pages.
 I have a few thousand to go .. but I am reading around 1860 now so considering I know what happens in 1903 not that much to go The state papers end in 1817/38.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=016/llsp016.db&Page=6
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsb&fileName=039/llsb039.db&recNum=838
its a serachable data base
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsplink.html#anchor5

since this case is in DC

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhb&fileName=011/llhb011.db&recNum=743