NationStates Jolt Archive

Please delete thread

For the record, I want to say: "oh no, not again."

The National Guard is not the militia. The militia, according to United States law, is every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45.

The National Guard is regular state military.

The National Guard is not the militia. The militia, according to United States law, is every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45.

The National Guard is regular state military.

I would ask if you were blind, but then I would have to wonder how you could type...

Did you not read the post? I specifically said that this is not a thread to discuss whether or not the national guard is the militia, this thread assumes its true.

I would ask if you were blind, but then I would have to wonder how you could type...

Did you not read the post? I specifically said that this is not a thread to discuss whether or not the national guard is the militia, this thread assumes its true.

Your post stated that National Guard is protected by a 2nd Amendment is persumed to be true. It didn't say that the National Guard is a militia.

The National Guard is a regular military with a regular structure, as such, there is no need for members to keep and maintain their weapons privatly.

To bring a new twist to the table, what are peoples opinions on the 2nd amendment in terms of the national guard? Many argue(Not me, personally) that the National Guard is the modern equivilent of the Militia, and should be confered the rights of the second amendment(The right to keep and bear arms...shall not be infringed). And yet, the national guard had this right infringed. They do not get to keep their firearms at home, the government keeps them in their arsenals when the guardsmen are not on duty. If people believe that the national guard are the ones protected in the 2nd amendment, should they not be allowed to take their guns home? Or purchase firearms without restriction?

Note: Please dont turn this into a discussion about whether or not the National guard is the entity which the 2nd amendment protects. This is assuming that is true.

Sorry I don't understand the question. What other question could there be about the second amendment and the national gaurd except if it is the militia intended in the wording?

Your post stated that National Guard is protected by a 2nd Amendment is persumed to be true. It didn't say that the National Guard is a militia.

The National Guard is a regular military with a regular structure, as such, there is no need for members to keep and maintain their weapons privatly.

Note: Please dont turn this into a discussion about whether or not the National guard is the entity which the 2nd amendment protects. This is assuming that is true.

Note the word "the", not "a", before entity. The bolded section was me asking for this not to be a debate whether or not the national guard is the militia the 2nd amendment talks about. The supreme court, and many others, have said it is. This is to discuss, if the National guard is in fact the militia, why it has gun ownership infringed.

Sorry I don't understand the question. What other question could there be about the second amendment and the national gaurd except if it is the militia intended in the wording?

The fact that the national guard has their right to keep and bear arms infringed. They have the same ownership prohibitions as civilians. If the NG is the militia, should they be able to keep their guns designated to them by the military? And/or should they be able to buy what they want to buy?

Well, that assumption is false. Literally, by definition. If perhaps the question you pose was a little clearer....

If you're looking for something a long the lines of "What if the Second Amendment said 'National Guard' instead of 'militia'?"

Well, I suppose those serving in the national guard might be encouraged, or perhaps even forced, to keep their sidearms and rifles at home perhaps with a small store of ammunition. They might have to meet special licensing requirements for automatic weapons as a condition of their service. Not all arms would be feasable to keep at home, would anyone who's not a nut-job really want to have a stack of morter rounds in the family room? And driving an Abrams home like a cop car or taxi would be a little hard on the both the vehical and the roadways, not to mention the gas cards.

Keeping the more dangerous toys at an arsenal would likely be part of "well regulated," as well as just being practical and an all around good idea.

The fact that the national guard has their right to keep and bear arms infringed. They have the same ownership prohibitions as civilians. If the NG is the militia, should they be able to keep their guns designated to them by the military? And/or should they be able to buy what they want to buy?

So, to clarify, the question at hand is:

Assuming the National Gaurd is actually the militia intended in the second amendment, is it an infringement on their rights if they are not allowed to keep and carry whatever weapons whenever and wherever they want?

Well, that assumption is false. Literally, by definition. If perhaps the question you pose was a little clearer....

If you're looking for something a long the lines of "What if the Second Amendment said 'National Guard' instead of 'militia'?"

Well, I suppose those serving in the national guard might be encouraged, or perhaps even forced, to keep their sidearms and rifles at home perhaps with a small store of ammunition. They might have to meet special licensing requirements for automatic weapons as a condition of their service. Not all arms would be feasable to keep at home, would anyone who's not a nut-job really want to have a stack of morter rounds in the family room? And driving an Abrams home like a cop car or taxi would be a little hard on the both the vehical and the roadways, not to mention the gas cards.

Keeping the more dangerous toys at an arsenal would likely be part of "well regulated," as well as just being practical and an all around good idea.

"The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution....The passage of the National Defense Act of 1916 materially altered the status of the militias by constituting them as the National Guard." Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41, 46 (1965). And in 1990 the Supreme Court ruled that "Notwithstanding the brief periods of federal service, the members of the state Guard unit continue to satisfy this description of a militia." Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334, 355 (1990)

The supreme court holds that the national guard is the militia that the 2nd amendment talks about, as do others. I personally dont.

*monkeywrenches*

Anyone else cares as much as I do?

Let's go ahead and accept that those quotes mean that the National Guard is exactly, and entirely, the militia described in the Constitution. (And I'm sure it does, and I've already learned something without looking up those particular cases.) Then your doesn't your question reduce to, "What would things be like if they're exactly the way they are now?"

To answer the original question, no. The right of the National Guard to keep and bear arms is not being infringed. They have the right to purchase and keep their own arms as they see fit. The fact that government property is kept under lock and key and not allowed to be brought home by the NG does not mean they are forbidden to possess "arms".

If we assume that militia is 'National Guard', yes. <EDIT> Iff the arms are their own. </EDIT>

It's rather unsafe to the ability to ensure freedom from domestic governmental oppression unless militia means 'Any decent shot with a lethal range weapon', however.

I would ask if you were blind, but then I would have to wonder how you could type...

Did you not read the post? I specifically said that this is not a thread to discuss whether or not the national guard is the militia, this thread assumes its true.

Blind people can type. They have special machines for them

Blind people can type. They have special machines for them


That is so very true.

If one assumes that the 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms directly to a State milita rather than to all people, then there is nothing infringing about having the weapons locked up at an armory that is controlled by the National Guard. The right is, persumably, granted to the orinization rather than its members.

However, it is infinging to prohibit a National Guard branch from obtaining certain classes of weapon. I know of no national guard armory that stocks high-yeild nuclear weapons. This is obviously unconstitutional and illegal. The National guard should be equiped equally to the Federal military, including ICMBs. Should a State ever need to secede but to Federal tyrany, the lack of nuclear weapons would put them at a severe disadvantage. Without MAD there is nothing stoping the national government from nuking a few major cities.

"The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution....The passage of the National Defense Act of 1916 materially altered the status of the militias by constituting them as the National Guard." Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41, 46 (1965). And in 1990 the Supreme Court ruled that "Notwithstanding the brief periods of federal service, the members of the state Guard unit continue to satisfy this description of a militia." Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334, 355 (1990)

The supreme court holds that the national guard is the militia that the 2nd amendment talks about, as do others. I personally dont.
Actually, the decisions you refer have nothing to do with the 2nd. There are esentially two types of militia. Active and inactive, the Nat Guard being a manifestation of the former. The 2nd itself makes no differentiation between the two.

Actually, the decisions you refer have nothing to do with the 2nd. There are esentially two types of militia. Active and inactive, the Nat Guard being a manifestation of the former. The 2nd itself makes no differentiation between the two.

I don't know why you are arguing this. I have not only said that this is not a place to discuss whether or not this is true, but that I dont even believe it. I'm simply stating that some believe this is true. FFS, can you people never stay on topic?

I don't know why you are arguing this. I have not only said that this is not a place to discuss whether or not this is true, but that I dont even believe it. I'm simply stating that some believe this is true. FFS, can you people never stay on topic?
The court cases you referenced have little to nothing to do specifically with the 2nd and yet you commented that the supreme court holds it true that the militia in the 2nd refers solely to the Guard itself. I was just pointing out the incongruency between your statement and your proof.

The court cases you referenced have little to nothing to do specifically with the 2nd and yet you commented that the supreme court holds it true that the militia in the 2nd refers solely to the Guard itself. I was just pointing out the incongruency between your statement and your proof.

Whatever. Fuck this topic, you can derail it all you want, im out.

just an FYI
this is the current status of the militia/national guard in the US
311. MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES

(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 [which deals with
membership in theNational Guard] 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.

it should be noted that the concept of the american milita was loosly based on the swiss model of the citizens army by our nations founders, as well as the fact that the second ammendmant like the others they penned deal with multiple subjects in one ammendmant. some in modern society have proceeded to try and interprit thier intent with a modern world view instead of simply looking at the comments made by the founders on the subjects in question.

does it infringe thier right? no
because the section on infringing rights applies to all individual citizens not to any military branch or state regulated militia. any member of the military or non-military as long as they are not a felon or insane may posess a firearm or several including automatic weapons(asuming the particular state they reside in allows it, and they have the proper licensing).

Can a mod delete this thread?

To quote USC Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311


(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.


Thus, The militia = the combination of the "organized" and "unorganized" militia.

"Organized Militia" = National Guard (Men and women)
"Unorganized Militia" = Every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45

BOTH are "militia" by US federal code... thus both are enjoined rights under the 2nd amendment...