SCOTUS - 2nd Amendmnt - Militia - CMP?

[NikNak]

To all,

I was just thinkng the other day that if the SCOTUS decides to incorrectly uphold the "militia" (collective right) as a justification for regulation of fireams as opposed to the "people" (individual), would the CMP (Civilain Marksmanship Program) formerly known as the DCM (Director of Civilian Marksmanship) be under consideration as the "militia?" Could those organizations listed below be included?

I see potentials for court definition of civilian militia as those in the following areas:

1. CMP Membership
2. USA Shooting Membership
3. State Rifle & Pistol Associations (CRPA)
4. NRA membership (not likely a gov't acceptable group, but possible)
5. CCW holders
6. Local gun clubs & organizations
7. LEO (active & retired)
8. Retired military

To be ahead of the curve, I suggest all to join as many of the above groups as possible. They all offer great information and in some cases, great rewards..... ie. (CMP - M1 Garands, ammo, Carbines, 03-A3s ......)

Just my rambling thoughts .... we need increased membership in all areas anyway!

[WKC]

There is already a defintition for the militia in the US Code:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
-STATUTE-
(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.

[NikNak]

Originally Posted by WKC

There is already a defintition for the militia in the US Code:

Well, we still have a chance with the last one, and we do need increased memberships in the organizations ...

[Bombard]

Originally Posted by WKC

There is already a defintition for the militia in the US Code:

So those of us over 45 are not part of the unorganized militia?

[WKC]

Originally Posted by Bombard

So those of us over 45 are not part of the unorganized militia?

I don't need to be in no militia to be unorganized. I can do that all by myself.

Here is some interesting reading. Concurring Opinions

It may already be posted in another thread.

[YankeeDog]

I have never understood the collective lunacy of those who advocate banning possession of firearms as method of reducing crime with guns. There must be millions of unregistered firearms in this country, both in the hands of law abiding citizens and BGs. If the SC came down on the 2nd Amendment badly, would the next step be legislation requiring weapons to turned in under penalty of law? I can imagine all the gang-bangers lining up to turn in their weapons.

Ol' Mike Huckabee sure had it right when he said that guns in the hands of citizens are protection against a tryannical goverment.




YD

[WKC]

I am hoping that the current thinking of a number of constitutional scholars will help in convincing the court that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Those scholars who claim it as a collective right have been academically and intellectually dishonest.

The other area that I believe the authors of the 2nd Amendment never envisioned having to define is the right to keep and bear arms for self defense against criminals. The idea that we have to declare that an individual has the right defend himself against criminals would seem ludicrous to the founding fathers.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by WKC

I am hoping that the current thinking of a number of constitutional scholars will help in convincing the court that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Those scholars who claim it as a collective right have been academically and intellectually dishonest.

The other area that I believe the authors of the 2nd Amendment never envisioned having to define is the right to keep and bear arms for self defense against criminals. The idea that we have to declare that an individual has the right defend himself against criminals would seem ludicrous to the founding fathers.

That's absolutely true. The right to self-defense was assumed by them. And the idea that you had to protect a right to use guns for hunting is also ludicrous. The reason they wanted to make sure that people had the right to own firearms was so that they could protect themselves against a tyrranical government.

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by WKC

There is already a defintition for the militia in the US Code:

That (2) part refers to us, right?

[WKC]

Originally Posted by IAmASensFan

That (2) part refers to us, right?

We're about as unorganized at it gets.

The point is that no matter how someone want to re-write history, they can't erase the fact that "the militia" and "the people" are the one and the same.

[JandJDude]

Originally Posted by WKC

I am hoping that the current thinking of a number of constitutional scholars will help in convincing the court that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Those scholars who claim it as a collective right have been academically and intellectually dishonest.

The other area that I believe the authors of the 2nd Amendment never envisioned having to define is the right to keep and bear arms for self defense against criminals. The idea that we have to declare that an individual has the right defend himself against criminals would seem ludicrous to the founding fathers.

Actually, the SCOTUS has already ruled that your "right" to life, liberty, etc. is your responsibility and NOT the job of law enforcement. LEOs are there to enforce all kinds of laws and regulations, not to be your own personal bodyguards.

That being the legal precedence, there is no apparent need to state self-defense is a right. The issue at hand has more to do with methodology- i.e. do you NEED a gun to defend yourself? Surely a kitchen knife, baseball bat, or halbard should suffice?

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by JandJDude

Actually, the SCOTUS has already ruled that your "right" to life, liberty, etc. is your responsibility and NOT the job of law enforcement. LEOs are there to enforce all kinds of laws and regulations, not to be your own personal bodyguards.

That being the legal precedence, there is no apparent need to state self-defense is a right. The issue at hand has more to do with methodology- i.e. do you NEED a gun to defend yourself? Surely a kitchen knife, baseball bat, or halbard should suffice?

Very true!

[flyingm]

Originally Posted by JandJDude

... i.e. do you NEED a gun to defend yourself? Surely a kitchen knife, baseball bat, or halbard should suffice?

Now wouldn't that be interesting to carry around...