MILITIA DEFINED

MILITIA DEFINED

THIS IS, AT IT'S ROOT, A DEFINITION OF MILITIA. AS TIME PROGRESSES, WE WILL LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF MILITIAS, THEIR FUNCTION AND THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS, AS WELL AS DOWNFALLS AND CONFLICTS.

Did the Founding Fathers intend for a right to have civilian militias? If this quote from Samuel Adams is accurate, then the answer is an explicit yes: "It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people
to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control ...
The Militia is composed of free Citizens.
There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power
to the destruction of their own Rights,
or suffering others to invade them." http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/samuel_adams_quote_d1d0

Militia Defined

According to Webster's [Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. © 1963 By G. & C. Merriam Co.], a militia is; 1 : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency. 2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service. Does this mean that this is the only type of militia which is recognized and sanctioned or allowed by the Constitution of the United States of America? Some would say yes to that rhetorical question, but in response, we might pose another interrogatory: Are there not many private detectives and guards, in addition to and separate from, government investigators and protectors?

The first paragraph of the 'Declaration of Independence' strongly intimates and in fact, necessitates, that there be, at least in times of political peril, a unit of forceful organization capable of enforcing a disuniting between two major parties, that is, a dissolving of administrative bands connecting two different frames of mind and sets of hearts. That force does not necessarily have to be conducted with arms, but is is expedient that the optional ability be in place.

The second paragraph of the 'Declaration...' further substantiates the need for a for a competent organization that can throw off a government which constrains the populace to allow themselves to be reduced to a rulership of despotism and tyranny, emphasizing that not only is it a right of the people to do so, but it is a duty. That is a duty both to ourselves and to others.

In the 27th paragraph, it is mentioned that the king of England was transporting armies separate from any nation's distinct armed forces, mercenaries actually, which body of troops could be considered as a kind of militia. This means that military oriented groups different than the regular services were recognized even before the founding of the U.S.A.

At the conclusion of the Declaration of Independence, the United States was not yet formed, yet the then soon to be founders asserted that they had the power to break away from England and wage war against Her as need be. Without an armed force of some kind, that would not have been possible, and until the actual establishment of the new nation, the group of force was a militia, rather than an actual armed service.

Article One, Section eight of the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise and support armies and a navy, of course, but no prohibition against other forces is mentioned. It goes on to say that the Congress can make rules for those forces, which could conceivably cover any assembly which could be called a force. Further, Congress can call forth the Militia to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

As of yet, it could be considered uncertain as to whether or not the Founders are referring to two separate organizations as a whole. But in the next paragraph, some distinction is made: there is a unit which is employed in the service of the United States, everything necessary being provided for by the Government, and a part which is not. At this point, it could be assumed that the parts not utilized are on standby, yet they are still a Militia. The national Guard and Reserves are provided for by the federal and state Governments, so it appears that there is some other type of force.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states the right for people to peaceably assemble, which would cover any group not subversive to the Constitutionally prescribed nation. Even a Militia or other group which gathers to target practice, practice patrol techniques and conduct survival training is covered by the Constitution, especially since a force which could be called upon by the Government needs to be proficient in military oriented tasks.

The Second Amendment states, in one sentence and within one context, that it is necessary for a free people in each state, to maintain a well regulated Militia, having a non-infringable right to do so and to keep and bear arms. The Constitution has already provided for the right of Congress to raise, train and equip the armed forces, no need of repeating it. The Second Amendment is referring to the common people to have an armed force, not specifically stating by what means it is to be regulated.

By the wording in the document, I believe that it is self explanatory that the Second Amendment documents the right for the civilians to organize and retain a force distinctly different than the army, navy, air force, marines and coast guard, and that Article One, Section eight refers to the regular military and the reserves and national guard.

Todd A. Slee, 09/17/2016