From: geff@iastate.edu (Geff Underwood)
Subject: Re: Gun Control, Militias
Keywords: Gun Militia
Organization: none for me, thanks, I'm trying to cut down
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:54:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.182709.30336@mcs.kent.edu> dmcclory@Chaos.mcs.kent.edu (Daniel McClory) writes:
>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?

In <Title 10, Section 311, subsection (a)>, the law says:
%   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 intent to become, citizens of the United States, and of female
% citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the
% National Guard.

That does exclude most women, but remember:  women were also not allowed
to vote.  I would like to change "able-bodied males" to "able-bodied
persons".

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

Yes.  A last resort, but still legitimate.

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

Not quite.  I think you're remembering this excerpt from Article I,
Section 8:
%   The Congress shall have Power ...
%   To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
% Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
%   To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
% for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
% the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
% Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
% according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Congress can make rules for the militia, but it can't enforce these rules;
that's left to the states.  If the members of the militia don't like the
rules, they can simply ignore Congress when it calls them forth.

>	- 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?

They would be, but Congress isn't in control of the militia.

>	- 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?

Congress may choose which weapons it will issue to the militia.  The
present choice is "no weapon at all".  Given the current state of the
budget, that's probably a good idea.  I don't believe that Congress ever
had the authority to disarm the people, but even if it did, we have the
Second Amendment:
%   A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the Security of a free
% State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
% infringed.

I have underlined one very important section.  No matter what the authors
meant by "Militia", the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the
people.  If Article I, Section 8 grants the power to disarm the people,
Amendment II revokes it.

>	- 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?

Actually, there should be a mix of weapon types.  If everybody has an
assault rifle, who's the sniper?

Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "actively promoting".  If you're
talking about passing a non-binding resolution saying "the militia is
hereby encouraged to buy rifles", that would be fine.  If you're talking
about _making_ people buy guns, I am opposed.  I don't see where Congress
has the power to do that, and I don't want it done even if it is
Constitutional.

>	- 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.

I am not aware of any reason they couldn't do this.  Even if they did,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The action you describe would have more impact if Congress had actually
issued something to the militia; anybody kicked out of the militia could
be required to return all their issue equipment.

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

I hope this helps.
--
Geff Underwood
geff@iastate.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17974 alt.activism:7626