PDA

View Full Version : Doesn't 10 USC 311 Require us to have AW's ?


sreiter
12-26-2012, 8:18 AM
10 USC § 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 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.


The as part of the requirements of being in said militia, you're required for keeping a rifle of military grade.

Wherryj
12-26-2012, 11:23 AM
I prefer to think of myself as the disorganized militia.

Tiberius
12-26-2012, 3:53 PM
I haven't read the Heller opinion, tho I should - but that statute certainly supports the individual right interpretation of the 2A. Interesting.

jtyner
12-26-2012, 4:05 PM
I prefer to think of myself as the disorganized militia.

Heh. I like it.

dustoff31
12-26-2012, 4:52 PM
10 USC § 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 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.


The as part of the requirements of being in said militia, you're required for keeping a rifle of military grade.

So where does it say that?

The Militia act of 1792 saying that each person must provide himself with a musket, knapsack, etc., was repealed a hundred years ago.

phrogg111
12-26-2012, 5:03 PM
The right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not ne infringed. There's a reason this right is in the bill of rights, but not a reason to excersize that right - any reason is valid. The right exists. It is of the people. It shall not be infringed.

Assault weapons should be defined as "any weapon that can be used to assault a person", not "the scary looking guns on my list". Coincidentally, any weapon that can be used to assault someone is, in fact, an arm, as protected by the bill of rights. Oh, wait, that's not a coincidence at all!

dustoff31
12-26-2012, 5:10 PM
The right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not ne infringed. There's a reason this right is in the bill of rights, but not a reason to excersize that right - any reason is valid. The right exists. It is of the people. It shall not be infringed.

Precisely. It's a right. The end. There is no need for further justification.

sreiter
12-26-2012, 7:14 PM
So where does it say that?

The Militia act of 1792 saying that each person must provide himself with a musket, knapsack, etc., was repealed a hundred years ago.

Was it repealed , or replaced with the Dick act ?

Musket = military weapon of the day

jpigeon
12-26-2012, 7:35 PM
NOPE

dustoff31
12-26-2012, 7:36 PM
Was it repealed , or replaced with the Dick act ?

Musket = military weapon of the day

It was repealed by the Dick Act, and the Dick Act says nothing about the unorganized militia providing their own equipment. Nor does it need to.

We have a right to firearms in common use irrespective of any connection to the miltia. At least that what the SCOTUS said.

ClarenceBoddicker
12-26-2012, 9:12 PM
The "reasonable restrictions" clause by the SCOTUS will be the undoing of a functioning 2A. Miller killed the idea of a functioning militia in the US.

sreiter
12-27-2012, 12:14 AM
The "reasonable restrictions" clause by the SCOTUS will be the undoing of a functioning 2A. Miller killed the idea of a functioning militia in the US.

reasonable restrictions were in reference to sensitive places, and miller did no such thing. the miller test was "is this weapon of military value"..the court found the SBS wasnt (miller died, his lawyer didnt show up to trial)