From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gun Control, Militias
Summary: Some questions about Congressional control of militia
Keywords: Gun Militia
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:12:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


In <1992Apr13.182709.30336@mcs.kent.edu> Daniel McClory states:

|I've read some of the recent posts concerning gun control, and I have been
|wondering about many of the Constitutional issues involved.  Please consider
|me a concerned citizen, and not a liberal or conservative on this matter.

|Allow me to pose a few questions:

|	- Are all citizens of the U.S. members of the militia?

No. Criminals in jail are not members of the unorganised militia.

|	- Is one of the purposes of the militia to overthrow an unjust
|	  government?

Yes.

|	- Is the Congress responsible/permitted to control the militia?

One of the concerns of the Founding Fathers was that Congress might
attempt to disable the militia through invidious means; the Second
Amendment does not give Congress the power to control the unorganized
militia.

|	- If the Congress is allowed to control the militia, and if one
|	  of the purposes of the militia is the overthrow of an unjust
|	  government, aren't these two ideas contradictory?

And in fact this is a logical fallacy of those who assert that the
2nd Amendment refers to the National Guard. The NG is subject to
being federalised at a moment's notice and hence could possibly not
act as a barrior against the federal government.

|	- If the Congress is allowed to control the militia, shouldn't
|	  it have the authority to legislate which weapons are 
|	  appropriate for the militia to use?  Might this include a
|	  ruling that handguns are inappropriate and are therefore
|	  outlawed?

Since the Congress is _NOT_ allowed to control the unorganized militia,
they have no authority to rule what weapons are appropriate or not;
that is the whole point of the "shall not be infringed" portion
of the Second Amendment.

|	- If we are all members of the militia, and if we are under
|	  the control of Congress, shouldn't the Congress be actively
|	  promoting the militia to arm itself with the most militarily
|	  effective weaponry?  In other words, shouldn't we all run out
|	  and buy assault rifles?

You should buy an assault rifle regardless of what Congress feels is
their power. James Madison was skeptical of bills of rights in general:
"parchment barriors," he called them, violated at will by majorities
"in every state."

As they said in Conan, the Barbarian:

		Trust Steel.

	
|	- What is to prevent the Congress from requiring that all members
|	  of the militia regularly undergo training in firearms use?
|	  Those who refused to comply would no longer be considered
|	  members of the militia.
	  
Because the whole point of the Second Amendment is to prevent the disabling
of the unorganized militia by Congress. What would be the point of 
including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights if it gave Congress
the power to disable it? Certainly, a "free state" could not be maintained
if COngress had the power to disable the militia.

|Just a few questions that have bothered me for a while.

An excellent article by David T. Hardy on this question of militia
and the 2nd AMendment is:

	"The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of
	Rights," The Journal of Law & Politics, Vol. IV, No. 1, Summer
	1987, pages 1-62.
	
I would urge you to read it.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18298 ca.politics:3496 ba.politics:2668 alt.politics.homosexuality:2162