Is Gun Ownership a Right?

[BjornF16]

[FONT=&amp]http://constitutionalmilitia.org/women-and-the-militia/


Women and the Militia
[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]In the pre-constitutional era, the full duty to keep and bear arms defined in the colonial and State Militia Acts applied only to all able-bodied adult free males, but never to free women and usually not to male slaves. Adult free women however, were often required by law to provide firearms, ammunition, and accoutrements for their minor sons and their male apprentices and servants enrolled in the Militia— so in this limited sense, free women too, were subject to a duty to keep arms. And in times of crisis, armed women who organized themselves in their own military company’s were not unknown. (footnote 1)
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
The duty to keep and bear arms carried with it an implicit right to do so, without such fulfillment of the duty would have been problematic or even impossible. So, “the people” who appertained the right and duty to keep and bear arms in relationship to the Militia consisted of all adult free males (for all purposes) and certain adult women (for certain purposes). Moreover, no statute in that era ever generally disbarred any free men or women from themselves possessing firearms in their homes, or from carrying them abroad for any legitimate purpose reason unrelated to the Militia. (footnote 2)[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]1.) See e.g., David H. Fischer, Paul Revere’s Ride (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), at 170-171.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]2.) Constitutional “Homeland Security”, Volume I, The Nation in Arms, Bookmasters Inc., Ashland, Ohio (2007), by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., page 44

-----------------------

[/FONT]http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/revolution.htm

Over 420 African Americans who were born free during the colonial period served in the Revolution from Virginia. Another 400 who descended from free-born colonial families served from North Carolina, 40 from South Carolina, 60 from Maryland, and 17 from Delaware.

[FONT=&amp][SIZE=5][SIZE=2]There were over 75 free African Americans in colonial militias and French and Indian Wars in Virginia, North and South Carolina.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=&amp][SIZE=5]
----------------

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=&amp]I would venture that women were part of the "unorganized" militia...free blacks were part of the militia. So, YES, the whole "free" population was part of the militia.[/FONT]

[stanc]

I would venture that women were part of the "unorganized" militia...

Since women were not required to serve in the organized militia, I see no logical reason to conclude that women were considered part of the unorganized militia.

...free blacks were part of the militia.

Some free black men were members of organized militias, but (like white women) they were not required to serve.

Only ~8% of the black population was free. The other 92% were slaves generally denied the right to keep and bear.

The Militia Act of 1792 makes it very clear that the Founders wanted the militias composed solely of free white men.

So, YES, the whole "free" population was part of the militia.

The facts do not support that conclusion. Plus, Mason did not qualify his statement by saying the militia was "the whole free population." He said it was "the whole people," which it clearly was not.

That is, unless by "the whole people" what Mason actually meant was free white men...

[LR1955]

Since women were not required to serve in the organized militia, I see no logical reason to conclude that women were considered part of the unorganized militia.


Some free black men were members of organized militias, but (like white women) they were not required to serve.

Only ~8% of the black population was free. The other 92% were slaves generally denied the right to keep and bear.

The Militia Act of 1792 makes it very clear that the Founders wanted the militias composed solely of free white men.


The facts do not support that conclusion. Plus, Mason did not qualify his statement by saying the militia was "the whole free population." He said it was "the whole people," which it clearly was not.

That is, unless by "the whole people" what Mason actually meant was free white men...

So, there were only two races of men in the Colonies, white and black?

I would think if Mason meant only white men, he would have said so.

[bj139]

well, as I read the laws , yes it is.

dammitman, you resurrected this.

[keystone183]

I guess i'm dense. I still have no idea why we're arguing or discussing organized vs unorganized militias. Can somebody type an explanation out very slowly and with as many four letter words as possible so that i at least have a chance to understand?

[montana]

I guess i'm dense. I still have no idea why we're arguing or discussing organized vs unorganized militias. Can somebody type an explanation out very slowly and with as many four letter words as possible so that i at least have a chance to understand?

There are some who believe the 2ndA applies only to the organized militia," AKA, the national guard", thus nullifying the right to bear arms to all others. All citizens belong to the un-organized militia which has been the topic of discussion. The debate is rather moot since the Heller case ruled:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes,

[keystone183]

There are some who believe the 2ndA applies only to the organized militia," AKA, the national guard", thus nullifying the right to bear arms to all others. All citizens belong to the un-organized militia which has been the topic of discussion. The debate is rather moot since the Heller case ruled:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes,

Those people like to read words that aren't there, and skip over ones that are....

I do often wonder why the FF's decided that only one single amendment needed an explanatory preface....

[stanc]

So, there were only two races of men in the Colonies, white and black?

I would think if Mason meant only white men, he would have said so.

Perhaps that's because you're looking at it from a 21st century perspective, instead of in the context of his time?

In the late-18th century, the vast majority of blacks were considered property. As such, they did not have rights.

[stanc]

I do often wonder why the FF's decided that only one single amendment needed an explanatory preface....

That's the key issue. If the Second Amendment were not meant to protect the supply of weapons for the militia, why does it have the prefatory clause?

If it was intended to protect the use of guns for sporting and other civilian use, it seems like it would simply say, "The right to keep and bear firearms shall not be infringed."

Instead it specifies "Arms" (which in the context of the time meant military weapons), and links their possession and use to "well regulated" organized militia units.

[keystone183]

That's the key issue. If the Second Amendment were not meant to protect the supply of weapons for the militia, why does it have the prefatory clause?

If it was intended to protect the use of guns for sporting and other civilian use, it seems like it would simply say, "The right to keep and bear firearms shall not be infringed."

Instead it specifies "Arms" (which in the context of the time meant military weapons), and links their possession and use to "well regulated" organized militia units.

Sorry, but no! You have provided no explanation. Had they wanted to protect the supply of weapons for the militia, they would have written, .....the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. .... But they didn't.

Now would you like to take another stab at why they found only one amendment necessitated an explanation?

[montana]

Perhaps that's because you're looking at it from a 21st century perspective, instead of in the context of his time?

In the late-18th century, the vast majority of blacks were considered property. As such, they did not have rights.

For a better understanding of voting rights in the US:http://www.history.org/foundation/journa...ctions.cfm
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/wh...themselves

[stanc]

Sorry, but no! You have provided no explanation. Had they wanted to protect the supply of weapons for the militia, they would have written, .....the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. .... But they didn't.

Now would you like to take another stab at why they found only one amendment necessitated an explanation?

LOL. You tell me.

[keystone183]

LOL. You tell me.

I said i have often wondered.......not that i've found an explanation!

[stanc]

I said i have often wondered.......not that i've found an explanation!

I gave you a logical explanation for linking the militia with the RKBA.

[keystone183]

I gave you a logical explanation for linking the militia with the RKBA.

Yes you did. One of many possible interpretations. However, wasn't an answer to the question asked. Which come to think of it, wasn't actually posed as a question initially....

[stanc]

Yes you did. One of many possible interpretations. However, wasn't an answer to the question asked.

Hmm. I see now that I misread/misunderstood your question. :o

I dunno the answer. Unless Madison said somewhere, or told someone why he chose to do it that way, I reckon we'll never know.

[stanc]

There are some who believe the 2ndA applies only to the organized militia," AKA, the national guard", thus nullifying the right to bear arms to all others.

I suppose one could make that argument if we still had the original militia system, but it is not at all applicable to the National Guard.

In the original militia, members were required to provide their own weapons, hence the need to assure they had legal access to arms.

In the National Guard, individual members are prohibited from using their own weapons; they must use government-issued weapons.

All citizens belong to the un-organized militia...

Says who? :confused:

[montana]

I suppose one could make that argument if we still had the original militia system, but it is not at all applicable to the National Guard.

In the original militia, members were required to provide their own weapons, hence the need to assure they had legal access to arms.

In the National Guard, individual members are prohibited from using their own weapons; they must use government-issued weapons.


Says who? :confused:

Cornell Law school. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

[stanc]

All citizens belong to the un-organized militia...

Says who?

Cornell Law school. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

:confused: According to that link, the unorganized militia consists only of able-bodied males 17-45 years of age.

That's maybe 25% of the population.

[montana]

:confused: According to that link, the unorganized militia consists only of able-bodied males 17-45 years of age.

That's maybe 25% of the population.

Yes, and old and decrepit people can not join the military. In a national crisis, any and all people can be called to serve. Since the Heller case verified the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with "service" in a militia, it is also reasonable to assume that all people belong to the un-organized militia since all people have the right to bear arms and can be called to serve in a crisis,"Marshal Law". https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-scie...artial-law. There is no historical reference to age discrimination for the right to bear arms because of the inability to serve in the arm forces. If there is, please show me.

When Georgia in 1837 enacted the first ban on pistol ownership, its supreme court promptly struck it down, holding in the process that the second amendment applied to the states. It explained the amendment's meaning: "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women, and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not merely such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed ... and this for the important end to be achieved, the rearing up and qualifying of a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free state."