First, I would like to say how much I appreciate having so literate and
erudite an individual as Mr. Rutledge with whom to discuss this topic.
Frankly, most anti-RKBA posters refuse even to approach the topic of
the original understanding of the Bill of Rights as detailed in the
writings of the era. This  is most refreshing.

Second, I must apologize for leaving the discussion for several days.
My brigade's quarterly drill was this weekend and I needed to attend
to several matters pertaining to the State Militia.

Some people seem to feel that the concept of the Militia is an anachro-
nism that is out of place in the 20th century. I'm not sure the Swiss
would agree and I think perhaps a discussion of how the Militia, both
organized and unorganized, fits into the defense plans of my State,
Mississippi. Please do not assume that this describes something peculiar
to one southern state. For instance, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
has a well organized Militia which, members report, maintains stocks
of both riot guns and machine guns. The laws of other States will vary
but are probably similar.

Title 35  of Mississippi Code defines our Militia as "all able-bodied
citizens of the state between the ages of seventeen (17) and sixty-
two (62) years...". The Militia is divided into 3 classes: The National
Guard, the Mississippi State Guard and the unorganized Militia.  The
National Guard is a strange sort of fish from a Constitutional perspective.
It tries to be both State Militia and Federal Reserve. The discussion
of this "para-constitutional" arrangement is quite interesting in itself
but somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice it that, at this
date, the National Guard has ceased to have any Constitutional standing
as anything but a Federal reserve force.

Mississippi, and most other States, maintains a purely State organized
Militia. In Mississippi this is called The State Guard. In other 
States it may be called something else. The State Guard exists as
a cadre or training corps made up of mostly experienced officers and
senior NCOs who serve as volunteers without compensation. We drill
on a monthly basis at the company and battalion level, brigade once
a quarter and have an annual drill of the whole organization. Our
State-authorized cadre strength is 694. This is a skeleton of an
organization without any flesh. The muscle and sinew when needed will
come from the unorganized Militia.

In time of invasion, insurrection or calamity the Governor can order
the activation of the State Guard. When this takes place a call will
first be made  for volunteers to fill the organization out to either
its contingency strength of 2194 or full strength of 4910. In the
event that a sufficient number of people fail to volunteer, the law
provides detailed instructions for the conducting of a draft of the
unorganized Militia. The size of the State Guard is not specified by
law, but rather by executive order. At one time, the organized Militia
of Mississippi consisted of 68 regiments. Needless to say, the State
does not have armories brimming with weapons with which to equip such
a force. The historical precedent for arming such a force is by use
of mostly the private arms of the Militiamen. 

It is my hope that demonstrates that State Militias are far from being
the long dead anachronisms that some may wish to claim.


Regarding Hamilton: If you take Hamilton's opinion as being the sole
representative of the opinions of the Founding Fathers, you will have
chosen a highly skewed sample set. Hamilton was on the extreme Federalist
end of the political spectrum. Others, such as Coxe and Henry, can
be chosen to represent the other end. Many contemporaries felt that
the idea of having a standing Army of any sort or even a select Militia
or "train bands" were contrary to the egalitarian nature of the govern-
ment they were striving to perfect. The compromise reached was to
provide for a small Army, which had to be refinanced every two years,
and iron-clad protection for the Militia, which was to remain ever,
"terrible and irresistible".

These protections included: State control, not Federal; limitation
of Federal utilization of the Militia (i.e. execute Laws, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions), and the Right to Keep and Bear
Arms to prevent what the British had tried to do at Lexington.
These limitations eventually proved so onerous to the Federal Govern-
ment that they were skirted by the creation of the National Guard.

The National Guard was created for one very simple reason: the 
Constitutional Militia was had proved too unreliable for fighting
wars of imperial expansion. (e.g. Spanish-American War). The
Constitution provided that the Militia could only be employed by
the Federal government in very limited purposes. As far back as the
War of 1812, Militia units had refused to leave United States
territory to attack the enemy. Further, there was no Constitutional
authorization for any conscription of anyone into the Federal
Military and Militiamen were particularly protected. In all wars until
WW-I every American who left the country under arms was a volunteer.
When the National Guard acts of 1903-1916 required that each new
member also enlist as a reservest in the Army, existing soldiers were
"grandfathered". At least one of these "grandfathered" individuals
refused to go to France in 1918 and his refusal was upheld by the
Federal Courts.

Mr. Rutledge has stated that the Second Amendment applies only to
members of a "well organized" militia. However, the pre-Constitutional
history of the American Militia shows relatively few periods when
The Militia came close to meeting either Messrs. Rutledge or Hamilton's
definition of "well organized". In the period of peace between the
French & Indian War and The Revolution many companies simply stopped
drilling and had to be reconstituted just prior to The Revolution.
Perhaps Mr. Rutledge would care to argue that those of my ancestors
who answered the Lexington alarm had forfeited their rights because
their units didn't drill for a few years in the 1760s. I would not
be so bold.

Again, I wish to repeat. The National Guard, for all its merits, is
not the Militia described by the Constitution  nor by Mr. Hamilton
nor by Mr. Henry nor by Mr. Coxe. The fact that the Federal Government
and many States are delinquent in their attentions to and organizing
of their Constitutional Militias  diminishes neither their
responsibilities nor the rights of the Militia as detailed in the
Constitution.
 
Misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the Militia is but one
error that has crept into modern readings of the Constitution. The
Constitution prohibits States from keeping "Troops or Ships of War
in time of Peace". I have heard some insist this prevents States from
maintaining a Militia, but this comes about because people today do not
understand the meanings of the words in their 18th century usage.
Today we call any large vessel a "ship" but in the 18th century the word
described a particular kind of vessel.  A "ship" is a large vessel with
three or more masts each carrying square rigged sails. A "brig" has two
masts. In the contemporary usage the States were prohibited only from keeping
the largest warships of the day, those capable of global operations. Today's
equivalent might be a prohibition on the States' keeping nuclear missiles.
"Troops" at this time meant a full-time professional military organization.
Any study of contemporaneous writings will bear this out. 

In at least one respect, I am in agreement with Mr. Rutledge; being
personally involved in the maintenance and advancement of The Militia
as a viable means of defense for a modern society, I am frequently
both bemused and saddened when friends and associates wax poetic on
their place in the unorganized Militia and become strangely silent or
scarce when invited to attend a  drill of their State's Militia.