I recall being very firmly instructed by another member of this forum that for the purposes of "correctly" interpreting the 2nd Amendment, every adult member of the populace with a firearm is to be automatically considered to be a member of the militia. I think that would give you somewhat more than the 10 million warm bodies you're looking for.

I personally think the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, and it became so in 1903 with the formation of the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment itself needs an Amendment that more clearly defines the right to ownership of personal weapons -- as written now, you can't blame people for thinking the militia part doesn't apply anymore, because it doesn't anymore.

And don't flame me. It's a personal opinion. I'm definitely not an anti-gun nut (I consider myself an "Enlightened Democrat"), but I'm definitely not a gun nut either. There are both out there, ranging from those who want to ban all firearms ownership to the NRA.

Militia was a large part of it, but also armed citizens were the "4TH" box, Soapbox, Ballot Box, Jury Box, Cartridge Box. Most countries have the first three(South Korea). Finally, law abiding citizens should own most available weapons, nukes,bioweapons and lethal gas are exceptions. Substances like BZ are illegal drugs and come under other headings. The militia part is a tar pit trap for pro and anti.. Also most states consider their state police as actual paramilitary forces. The state police commander is a state commisioned officer, the commander of the gaurd is regular army. This also allows the states to ignore the local militias. My personal stance domestic-wise is modified libertarian, society has to change to allow drug use, like Switzerland, many an addict is still issued a sig 551 rifle, but there is no rampant violence. In the End the second amendment isn't obsolete, but society's perception of it is.

Just clarify, I wasn't trying to derail this thread with a pro- or anti- gun ownership rights debate, I was seeking discussion on the view that there may be some legal basis in the US to the apparently widely-held assertion that adult-aged firearms owners in the US are basically automatically considered to be part of the militia. Or is that point just for the purposes of justifying unrestricted firearms ownership under the 2nd amendment and not actually backed by any legal substance in terms of the de-facto existence of a massive militia force across the nation?

Just for the record:

I'm glad a sarcastic/rhetorical post about a, IMO, rather ridiculous topic (if anyone's interested, look up Jade Helm 15 Bastrop council questions on Youtube, it's quite a hoot to watch) has stimulated some much more interesting discussion and info on state militias.

Invading Texas is SO overrated. Seriously, you want to give Texans more attention when they're already loud and obnoxious enough? Instead, I'd rather go and invade....AUSTRALIA! And weaponize the wildlife. And develop sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads. And use it all to invade and...RULE THE WORLD. <cue evil laugh>

Black Helicopters are COOL. Really. Anyone who ever watched "Airwolf" will agree with that. :p

Weaponise Australian wildlife? Most of it is already weaponised. Even the bloody birds. Look up the cassowary, those angry bastards kill people. That's some seriously angry chicken.

So...we have a bird that charges you, kicks you, and even claws you and is responsible for over 200 attacks on humans per year...and so tough to eat that experts advise cooking the critter with a stone...and when the stone is soft enough to eat, so is the cassowary!?!?!?

Well actually, the original recipe advised throwing away the bird and eating the stone.

:D

Actually it also generates adventure ideas. The PC's are to train a militia unit, however a political shift, takeover, power shift occurs and now they must leave before they are interned and thier gear confiscated. Or the only force to aid the PCs against an assault is a company of state militia. BTW, I think even opposing views have behaved well, it can be done on the internet! But alot of people fail......

Any state guard in the Southwest who identifies more with Mexico would not likely be in existence in any part of the US under Milgov or Civgoc control due to the fact that US forces are fighting Mexicans occupying US territory. The US military would probably feel more comfortable allowing a state guard of gang bangers from the Cribbs and Bloods or Chinese Tongs than allowing Hispanic dominated militias exist.

Some state guard in areas with large native populations might be likely to identify with their own tribe, but the native American uprising scenario would be more of a myth than a reality. My wife is Navaho-German with family in the Southwest and White-Indian animosity is really only something you would see in cowboy films. But there is plenty of inter-tribal Indian rivalry and a lot more animosity between Indians and Mexicans, they are seen as the intruders now. However in the scarcely populated Northern Great Plains it might happen over resources.

On my first deployment, our first platoon was about 90% Navaho with most of the rest being white, there was a lot of hazing and picking on the "white man" but when it got dicey we were thick as theives. I have seen this time after time. One part of the unit may pick fun at a second part, but heven help if someone else thinks that they can.

As you're all already aware of; I have very little use for either "President Clinton" or "President G.W. Bush." They both violated the Constitution with both the Assault Weapons Ban and The Patriot Act. In addition; I see both as having committed crimes (perjury, violations of the Geneva Convention). The Patriot Act was by far the most insidious legislation I have ever read.
That being said, I can honestly call myself an independent. I believe in Choice (because we are already taking care of too many unwanted children), Hate Gun Control (because I don't trust my Government), Have no problem with Same Sex Marriage (more money for the government from marriage certificates) and would like to see some version of Universal health Care. I drive my friends nuts because I "Issue Vote" instead of picking a (in our area) Republican or Democrat. I will mostly likely play "The Devil's Advocate" in any debates we have here. I think ALL sides of any argument (most arguments don't have just two sides) should be looked at. I hate BOTH FOX News AND MSNBC. Spin runs BOTH ways.
The one think I REALLY like about this Forum is the depth to which the reasoning runs here. I have seen too many forums where a discussion falls into mutual "name calling" by the posters far too quickly. I am glad you don't do that here.

A friend of mine got a manual for Missouri's WWII militia from a neighbor's widow. Published using then current pics and older manual illustrations for M1901 revolvers,M1911/A1 pistols, M50/55 Reising smg's and P17, M1903 rifles. Basic infantry and crowd control formations were taught. The inside cover referenced "Section 61 of the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916. State militias were to fill the gap left when NG units deployed in Federal service.
The Twilight War would make this viable again. Probably based around State Police command and greybeards as a cadre.

Now I have not looked into it, but a friend of mine (2nd LT US JAG) said that he had. He told me that legally the Geneva Convention does not apply to the US, as the President signed it but Congress never ratified it, so by international law it is the same as if we did not sign it.

Correct, the senate must sign off on all treaties. Most of these we honor, but aren't bound to the conventions, protocals.

RN7: Concur on post-Mexican invasion. I was thinking more along the lines of a pre-invasion state militia unit changing sides upon the Mexican Army moving north. The scenario would be a border state whose National Guard is federalized and whose state guard leadership is appointed via political cronyism (as bad as this is in the National Guard, I would think that it would be an order of magnitude worse in a state militia). Some of the subordinate local commanders start packing their unit along ethnic lines using existing social networks (neighborhoods, churches, social clubs, sports clubs, even gangs), and suddenly you have a large group of ethnically unified and like minded individuals able to enforce security at the point of a gun. I could see this type of unit left as an occupying force as the main invasion force moves north. It's a win-win for the invaders as they do not have to tie down forces to occupy conquered territory while the local militia commander essentially becomes a warlord/mafioso.

Great point also about the native Americans. I had no idea about the animosity between them and Mexicans in the southwest until I read "Blood and Thunder", a really great read about Kit Carson and New Mexico. I followed up with a native American friend of mine who confirmed that animosity exists in some areas.

This is most likely how such a thing would be formed. It's been awhile since I looked at the statutes but I recall researching during the first pandemic scare in 2009 that the KS Governor had the authority to recall retired members of the National Guard back into state service. And in most states the State Police/Highway Patrol has the lead for the Law Enforcement Emergency Support Function so it would be a natural C2 for a militia (unless, of course, you had political issues between the SP/HP and the National Guard (who wanted to retain control over the military forces in the state). That scenario would have two rival, armed forces working for the Governor, who would then become a pretty big target for miscreants on both sides seeking to cause trouble.

I'm sorry to beat a dead horse over such an obscure topic but I do think it's a very fertile area for a GM to harvest for adventure ideas.

I have never heard of that place (I was thinking about the converted church off of Highway 69 in Stillwell), however, I would love to meet for a pint or three of the black stuff. PM me if you are interested!

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”


I’ve been doing research on the Second Amendment over the past few years. My ideas on the subject have changed somewhat since I started. I’m fairly certain Raellus’ recollection is directed at something I wrote. I don’t remember writing it, but the idea of universal service in the militia for all gun owners sounds like what I used to advocate.


The questions posed here are good ones and deserve thoughtful reply. I will try to reply thoughtfully to the best of my ability without regurgitating the 80,000 words of notes I have taken over the past few years.


I think the place to start is to outline the thought process. The Second Amendment was written in the second half of the 1780’s. We are obliged by mandate of intellectual integrity to develop of thorough understanding of what the Second Amendment meant at the time. This means having an honest look at history—not really our strong suit in modern America, but a necessity. Then we can look at how that original meaning might be applied to modern America.


Based on 150 years of tradition with the militia, their experience in the American Revolution, and the strategic situation at the birth of the United States, the Framers of the Constitution decided to base the security of a free state [State] at least in part on the militia—preferably a well regulated militia. A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the Framers committed the State to a guarantee of access to arms by private citizens. Many questions rise from the turn of phrase used in the Second Amendment. They have been debated exhaustively over the years, almost always by people who knew what outcome they wanted before they started their analysis. The results are tragi-comic. Very few Americans seem very satisfied with the current state of affairs, but we seem tied in a Gordian knot on the subject. My goal has been to help us live within the terms of the law as written and as intended, insofar as such a thing may be possible today.


Definition of terms comes next. It’s impossible to analyze the Second Amendment without having a definition of the terms. This, too, has been undertaken with tragi-comic results. In part, the poor results stem from a paucity of genuine historical knowledge and a lack of military experience on the part of modern Americans. In part, the poor results stem from a predetermined outcome forcing unreasonable and sometimes laughable definitions to be superimposed on the terms. Everyone seems to understand, if only subconsciously, that rigging the definition of terms can fix the analysis favorably. So let’s look at the terms and try to place them in an historical context.


We must start with “militia”. This word has an American context applicable to 1787. How other countries, even England, may have used or currently use the term us not relevant. In its American context, a militia is a reserve formation of citizen-soldiers organized, trained, and equipped along the lines of regular formations. “Reserve” means part-time, non-professional, and drilling [training] according to a specified schedule. An American militia as it existed for the 150 years prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment operated under the command of the colonial (cum state) executive, who delegated his authority to the officers commissioned within the militia and to lesser executives within the colony. Regulation of the militia once assembled for drill or mobilized under the command of the authorized executive was conducted according to the equivalent of a colonial UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) which was drafted and ratified by the colonial-cum-state legislature. Among the regulations passed by the legislature were a schedule of drills, pay (as applicable), conditions of mobilization, duration of mobilization in terms of the maximum number of days per annum that a militiamen could be mobilized, and what amounted to a TO&E (table of organization and equipment) for the period. It’s worthwhile to note that among the applicable regulations was the rule that militia could not be compelled to serve on the soil of another colony/state, much less a foreign country. Volunteers could go where they wanted, and militia units were fruitful recruiting grounds for ventures outside a given colony and even foreign ventures. But the militia unit itself could not be compelled to go, nor were its members subject to a draft of any sort. Traditionally, the militia provided its own weapons; however, by the eve of the American Revolution militias often maintained small arms for poorer members of the militia and crew-served weapons held at the local armory.


Having defined the term “militia” in its context in the 1780’s when the Second Amendment was written and ratified, I’ll look at a few things the militia is not.


The militia is not the Regular Army. The Regular Army is a professional force of full-time soldiers. They, along with their predecessor the Continental Army, serve under the command of federal (continental) leadership. They can be compelled to serve anywhere in the world at the discretion of national leadership.


The militia is not the Army Reserve. The Army Reserve is a force of citizen-soldiers under the command of the federal executive. There is no effective limit on the number of days per year a reservist can be mobilized. They can be compelled to serve anywhere in the world at the discretion of national leadership.


The militia is not the National Guard. While it is true that the National Guard is descended from the states’ militia, since 1903 the National Guard has been a joint state-federal reserve force of citizen-soldiers. The federal government is the senior partner, which means the federal government is authorized to take command of the National Guard at will. There is no effective limit on the number of days per year a National Guardsman can be mobilized. The National Guard can be compelled to serve anywhere in the world at the discretion of national leadership.


The militia is not law enforcement. Law enforcement is predominantly full-time professionals enforcing the law. Generally they are not organized along the lines of military units, although a few police units cross the line into paramilitary status. The principal mission of law enforcement is law enforcement. They are authorized to take life on an as-needed basis in the execution of arrests and warrant serving, etc. in a civil setting. The militia is for making war, which means deliberately taking life for the purpose of achieving military objectives. Though there might be some crossover, the roles are distinct. One might argue that police auxiliaries could constitute a militia. I am open to further discussion on this point.


The militia is not any of the so-called “constitutional militias”. “Constitutional militias” are gangs of armed civilians operating on their own recognizance. They are not commanded by the state executive or any of his designees. They are not paid or regulated by the state legislature.


These distinctions are not arbitrary. They are meaningful in that the defining qualities of the militia I listed above reflect a philosophy that was relevant in the 1600’s when the first militia units were formed and remains relevant today. The distinctions between the Regular Army, Army Reserves, and National Guard on the one hand and the militia on the other come down to ownership. The federal government owns the first three groups, though the states pay to use the National Guard when the feds don’t have a job for the Guard. The states own the militia. This distinction plays into the ability of the militia to execute its two primary missions: defense of the state against foreign aggression and defense of the state against domestic tyranny. I’ll come back to this later.


The other important distinction goes to who has authority to kill—particularly, who has the authority to kill agents of the State as required. Self-defense covers some types of homicide, but this is not what the so-called “constitutional militias” have in mind. Taking life outside of a self-defense situation is called murder. This is especially true when the person killed is an agent of the State carrying out his assigned duties, like serving a warrant, keeping the peace, protecting a government facility, etc. The State delegates the right to kill people outside of self-defense situations. Only those serving the State (or state) under the command of civil authority and regulated by the legislature can be delegated the right to employ lethal force outside of a self-defense situation. In short, folks can’t just go running around killing whomever they please under whatever pretext serves—including claiming that they are overthrowing tyranny. The right to overthrow a tyrannical government, including killing police and soldiers, is a natural right. However, the Second Amendment is a binding contract between the State and the citizenry. The State cannot possibly authorize the citizenry to overthrow the republic on their own recognizance. A method has been put in place for the citizenry to overthrow tyranny, though.


The militiaman possesses the authority to take life while mobilized because he is delegated that authority through the chain of command which has the state chief executive (governor) at its apex. The chief executive is an elected official. He is authorized to act in the interests of the electorate. Therefore, his delegation of the authority to kill reflects the will of the electorate. The electorate is the basis of authority in the republic. The authority to kill originates with the electorate, passes through the elected executive, and is passed down to the troops serving under the command of the elected executive. Authority to regulate the militia originates with the electorate and is passed to the elected legislature. Absent the authority originating with the electorate, people may not kill other people (outside of self-defense) legally. For this reason, so-called “constitutional militias” are not militias at all. They are armed mobs. Their internal decision-making mechanisms are irrelevant. Absent authority of command and lethal action delegated by the executive and absent regulation by the legislature, these armed groups cannot possibly be considered militia.


I will come back to the authority to kill agents of the State as required later. For now, suffice to say that the organizations that have it belong to the federal government or law enforcement, while groups that would like to have that authority don’t have it.

In fact, there is no organization in modern America that meets the definition of “militia” as the Framers would have recognized it in the 1780’s. What was the militia became the National Guard over the course of a century-long transformation. The closest entities to militia in modern America are the State Guards, which I will refer to hereafter as State Defense Forces (SDF) for the sake of clarity. The SDF, which belong entirely to the states and which have no federal mission [The legality of this claim is under debate.] basically meet the definition of militia. Where they fall down, though, is that they are so wretchedly and pitifully incapable of executing either militia mission (defense against foreign aggression and/or domestic tyranny) that I shudder to call them the same thing as the 14,000 man force of Massachusetts militia that harried the British all the way back to Boston in April 1775 and established a siege of the city thereafter. Still, the SDF represent a viable kernel for a force that not only technically meets the definition of a militia but also might be able to execute one or both militia missions as well as crack the code on one of our most irritating gun control problems.


Having defined the term “militia”, I will look at “well regulated”. How do we recognize a well regulated militia from one that is not well regulated? Why would this matter? At the time the Second Amendment was written, “well regulated” meant “well disciplined” or “well functioning”. Any combat unit needs to be disciplined and


I want to examine the two missions of the militia next. Examination of the missions will tie back into the definition of the militia and why none of the organizations mentioned above except the SDF possibly could meet the definition of “well regulated militia”.


The “well regulated militia” had two primary missions in the late 1780’s: defense of the country against foreign aggression and defense of the country against domestic tyranny. These missions survive in the oath of service for all components of the military, which includes defending the Constitution against all threats foreign and domestic. Both of these missions involve the militia taking to the field (going into combat) against professional troops. These missions in turn necessitated ensuring that the citizenry comprising the militia have access to military grade small arms. Even the secondary mission of the militia—namely, support of law enforcement when armed and organized criminals and/or rebels become too powerful for law enforcement to tackle without additional combat power—requires access by the citizenry comprising the militia to military grade small arms.


What leads one to believe that the two primary missions of the militia would be combat against foreign professional troops and domestic tyranny? The Second Amendment points us in this direction: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” In what way, we should ask, is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state? In what way is a disciplined and well functioning body of citizen-soldiers related to the security of a free state? Clearly, violence organized on a large scale must be involved in any threat to the security of a free state such the militia would be necessary for the purpose of guaranteeing security. After all, any military formation exists for the purpose of employing organized violence on behalf of its leadership. If the purpose of the leadership is served merely through a convincing threat of violence, so much the better. Who, then, would be capable of employing organized armed violence that would require a disciplined and well functioning force of citizen-soldiers to oppose it? Professional troops top the list.


At the birth of the United States, the country was in a poor security situation. The population of roughly 3 million was scattered along the Atlantic seaboard between Maine and Georgia. The federal government was destitute. The Regular Army amounted to less than 5,000 troops, and they were widely dispersed. Any of the major European powers could have landed more troops than the Regular Army possessed anywhere along the coast at will. The only hope the United States had of facing such an eventuality was the militia. Given Washington’s experience with the militia during the Revolution, a well regulated militia was vastly preferable to a half-assed militia, which would in turn be vastly preferable to a bunch of anonymous dudes with guns who would be unable to even organize themselves into the firing lines stipulated by the weapons and tactics of the day, much less endure trading volleys with professional troops. The militia was not the ideal choice, but it was the best option available to a State with nearly empty coffers.


Even if the early federal government had possessed the means to field a Regular Army sufficient for the security needs of the young republic, the Founding Fathers probably would not have wanted to maintain such a force. They were deeply suspicious of standing armies. Many of the Founding Fathers were classically educated men. They understood that standing armies can become the tools of tyranny. The Roman Republic began its transition to the Roman Empire when Caesar crossed the Rubicon with troops more loyal to him than to the ideals of the Republic. The King of England attempted to enforce sharing the burden of the French and Indian Wars on the American Colonies through his professional force. The Framers of the Constitution understood that the discipline that makes an army effective in the field can be turned to the purposes of a domestic despot. Thus a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state that might under invasion by professional troops fielded by England, France, Spain, or even the Netherlands.


The same thinking that made the Framers mistrust standing armies meant that they had to accept that whatever professional force the United States might possess could be turned to the purposes of a domestic tyrant. The Framers understood that loyalty might flow from the troops to whomever sat at the apex of command. Therefore, a force of drilled and disciplined professionals would have to be counterbalanced by a much larger force of reservists if the qualitative advantages of the professional troops were to be offset. Loyalty to the chain of command would have to flow someplace besides to the chief executive of the federal government.


The situation set up by having multiple chains of command conforms to the Enlightenment philosophy of regarding separation of powers which is found everywhere in the Constitution. A professional force with standards of quality comparable to that of other professional forces would operate under federal command. A much larger force of reservists would operate under the command of the various state governors. The rise of genuine tyranny could not help but produce a backlash from the various states. Together, the states would field a force far too powerful for a domestic despot controlling only federal territory and only federal troops to overcome. Singly or in small groups, the states would not have the combat power to overcome federal forces. Thus a situation arising from the republican process which favored the majority would not result in a successful military resolution of grievances by the minority. [See: the American Civil War.] The balance of power between a numerically inferior but qualitatively superior professional force and a numerically superior but qualitatively inferior force of citizen-soldiers loyal to their various state chief executives would secure the status quo so long as the federal government didn’t do anything to piss off all or most state governments (such as falling into the hands of a domestic despot).


This ideal regarding an internal balance of power ran afoul of military considerations fairly quickly. I’ll come back to that.


I’ll sum up what I’ve written so far before delving into more of the details. The Second Amendment was written to ensure that the states’ militia had access to military grade small arms with were necessary for the execution of their two principal missions. The militia referred to in the Second Amendment has several defining characteristics which are not met by the Regular Army, the Army Reserve, the Army National Guard, professional law enforcement, or any of the so-called “constitutional militias”. The only organization in modern America that could be called a state militia is the conglomerate of State Defense Forces. The missions of the militia when the Second Amendment was written are the defense of a free state [State] against foreign aggression and the defense of a free state against domestic tyranny. Both of these missions require the militia to go into combat against professional troops.


Now I want to look at an idea that many Americans will find heretical: the Second Amendment was not written to protect private ownership of firearms for self-defense or hunting. That’s the bad news. The good news is that guns designed for self-defense don’t need the protection of the Second Amendment. Self-defense is a common law right. Access to a firearm designed for self-defense is part and parcel with that right. The Supreme Court clearly says so in the majority ruling of Heller v DC. They also say that one does not have to be in a militia to own a gun. This means that there is no connection between owning “a gun” and being in the militia. [Nod to Raellus] It’s noteworthy that the Supreme Court doesn’t define “a gun”, even though anyone who knows anything about firearms knows that an M1911, an M1903, and an M4 are drastically different machines operating on similar principles but with such different characteristics in terms of volume of fire and effective range that lumping them together as “guns” is about as serviceable as lumping a Mini Cooper and a commercial tractor trailer together as “automobiles”. I suspect that the author of the majority opinion deliberately avoided more specific terminology.


A right to self-defense means that the defender has the right to use lethal force. Obviously, most of us prefer that the defender not kill the assailant, if for no other reason than killing other human beings scars the psyche of the killer. No matter how much some of us may believe that Slasher the Mad Dog Rapist deserves a timely end to his criminal career at the hands of his intended victim, killing Slasher will affect the defender in ways that stunning him, disabling him, or crippling him will not. This much said, if the choice is between Slasher getting two to the chest and one to the ocular cavity or Slasher carrying through on his intended violation, I think people generally will support the former.


Self-defense has limits. If an armed intruder breaks down the door and refuses to believe that my wife will shoot him even though she has my revolver in hand and my kids crying with fear behind her, then his death can be ruled self-defense. On the other hand, a bunch of private citizens can’t go rolling into the neighborhood of some other private citizens on a shooting spree on the basis that “We know THEY are a threat to us, so we got them first.” Somewhere between these two extremes has to be drawn a line that separates self-defense from other types of homicide. This relates back to the tools used.


For the sake of drawing a line between self-defense and offensive homicide, I’m going to state with confidence that using lethal force against anyone 100 meters cannot be considered self-defense except under very special circumstances. A firearm optimized to service a target at ranges less than this can be considered a weapon optimized for self-defense. A firearm optimized for some other range cannot logically be considered a weapon optimized for self-defense. A firearm optimized for self-defense can and should be safeguarded for access by civilians under the common law right to self-defense.


Now, we all know a guy who can shoot the wings off a mosquito at 200 meters with a .44 revolver with a 4-inch barrel. That’s not what the weapon is engineered to do. Each manufacturer will make a different claim about maximum effective range of its .44 revolver with a 4-inch barrel, but very few of them will claim that the average shooter can get a 3-inch grouping at 100 meters. So the definition of maximum effective range, which plays into whether a firearm can be classified as optimized for self-defense or not, has to based on the machine-determined maximum effective range is modified by the ability of a gun owner who is firing a realistic number of rounds per month and who has little or no professional training.


A number of years ago I read an FBI report saying that 80% of gunfights in the civilian world occur at ranges of 21 feet or less. 40% of gunfights in the civilian world occur at a range of 5 feet or less. I think 100 meters is absurdly generous, but I’m willing to be ridiculous to draw a distinction between self-defense and non-self-defense that cannot be argued against by anyone who hopes to win a court case.


The point of all this fussing about ranges is that some types of firearms are covered by the common law right to self-defense. Some are not.


The guy with the AR-15 at home asks indignantly why his AR-15 shouldn’t be covered. That’s his first choice for home defense, after all. The answer is that use does not define capacity. The AR-15 is designed to deliver a high volume of fire accurately against human targets at ranges to 300 meters. This is inconceivable in a self-defense application. One might as well claim that an 18-wheel tractor trailer should not have to be registered as a commercial truck because the owner pinky promises he’s only going to go down to the corner store for cigarettes in it. Let’s be honest with ourselves: no one with any sense buys an AR-15 buys it because he thinks it’s better suited for home defense than a handgun or a shotgun with the shortest legal barrel. He buys an AR-15 specifically for the high volume of fire and the fact that he can hit a man-sized target 3 football fields away 50% of the time if he’s as good a shot as I am—more frequently if he’s a better shot, which is not that hard to imagine. (I’m not a great rifleman. I’m serviceable. I’d probably have been recycled a half-dozen times if I had gone through Marine Boot.) He buys the AR-15 specifically because it is the [equivalent of the] personal weapon of the infantry.

A firearm optimized for self-defense is not going to help a militiamen provide the security of a free state very much. The professional troops he’s supposed to be fighting, foreign or domestic, will be armed with whatever the standard small arm of the day is. A handgun can make a militiaman dangerous to one or more soldiers of the opposing force under the right conditions. A handgun is a useful backup weapon for CQB. It is not a serviceable primary weapon for a soldier of the infantry. Soldiers who are issued side arms as their primary weapon are not expected to engage in combat personally. They are literally issued side arms for self-defense.


Bringing this all back to the militia and the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Amendment was written so that a well-regulated militia could guarantee the security of a free state. The militia is a combat unit composed of citizen-soldiers. They are expected to go into combat against professional forces. The Second Amendment was written to guarantee the citizen-soldiery access to the primary weapons necessary to fight professional troops. If firearms for self-defense are not useful as a primary weapon for militiamen fighting professional troops, and if access to firearms for self-defense is already guaranteed by the right to self-defense, then what good purpose is to be served by imagining that the Second Amendment secures a right such that the securing is not very useful and redundant? The answer is that there is no good purpose served.


Several important items remain to be addressed.

• What about hunting and firearms optimized for hunting?
• If the Second Amendment was written to ensure that the citizen-soldiers of the militia have access to the appropriate firearms, how do we determine which firearms are covered?
• What happened to the militia?
• The rifles of the infantry are already out there in some numbers. Since there is no militia, now what do we do?

It is a well done article, I do however disagree with you on this point. A pistol is a terrible home defense weapon, the only thing that it has going for it is that it is easy to carry and or move with, for home defense that does not really apply if you are not trained to move with a weapon odds are you will not do it right regardless of what you have. If you are staying put in a locked room as lots of police departments recommend now how easy it is to carry and/or move with makes no difference. Now the shotgun has most of the advantages that the rifle has and as most people know the sound alone is enough to scare most bad men away, plus it is much easier to hit with as you only need to be pointing in the general direction. Both of these are wrong and if you are depending on them may get you killed. My background I did 20 years in the Army, and a bit over 8 as a Federal Police officer (firearms instructor among other ting I did), our shotguns (bought in the 1960's) will put all of the shot in the face at 75ft. I have also had the opportunity to shoot different things, the shotgun penetrated the best (Slug) and the buckshot was about as good as the AR, we use .40 sidearms and they were the worst. The shotgun also has the most recoil now if you have a one shot stop that does not matter much, they do happen not much but does happen. What about if there are more than one bad guy? Multiple attackers are happening more and more, last stats I saw had home invasions on the rise, they do not have to worry about you coming home and surprising them. So my choice for a home defense weapon is my M4 with suppressor it is more accurate than the handgun, easier to shoot so I am more likely to hit. If I do miss the bullet has less chance to penetrate multiple walls as there is only one not nine every time I pull the trigger. A saying we have is you own the bullet from the time you fire it tell it comes to a stop and the average cost of a miss is about $1 mil. But the biggest reason I pick the AR is that with all the training I have with it, it has become an extension of my body. Every time I pull the shotgun out of the rack I have to look at it as I do not remember if left is safe or is right, and if the fecal matter hits the oscillating blade and I need more ammo that is much easier with a magazine feed weapon the a tube feed. So in closing I would say what is best for self-defense is what you are best able to use to keep you safe and not put undue danger on those around you.

Wow. That was impressively comprehensive. Thanks Web.

Your logic is hard to argue with but I would point out that the firearm I have put the most rounds through and therefore would be most effective with is the Commonwealth version of the FN-FAL. Let's be honest, as a home defence weapon that would be massive overkill and 7.62N rounds would probably punch through several home invaders, and the front wall of my house, and the front fence, and travel who knows how far through my neighborhood.

Having said that, I'd still love to have one in my possession at home if it was legal. :D

A very good reply, sir. Very reasonable. I almost forget we’re on the Internet.

I must admit that my statement about sense and choosing the AR-15 for home defense is hyperbolic. Point taken on that one. (I’m using you guys as a beta test, so this feedback is very useful.)

That much said, you have a unique comfort with the AR-15 based on your experience. One wonders how many people who might use an AR-15, AK-47, FAL, etc for home defense share your level of training and experience. People who have it and are not well versed in its use indoors are a hazard to themselves and their neighbors. Many who think they are going to be stellar performers in CQB learn otherwise once the real thing comes along. Trigger control under stress requires drill. As you rightfully point out, you own every round that goes downrange. (I wish everyone in Iraq had remembered that.) Based on your observation about the best weapon for self-defense being that which one can use to keep oneself safe without undue danger to those around, I would say that the semi-auto detachable magazine-fed rifle is not the best choice for any but a select few.

I haven't executed CQB with a handgun, so I'm not able to comment on it. I'll readily agree that lack of proper training presents a problem for anyone attempting CQB. I will file your comments about utility for home defense away and think about them some more.

I deliberately left the shotgun out so far because it is so versatile. I think most people would agree with you that the shotgun is far superior to the handgun for almost all purposes. I haven’t gotten to the shotgun in my narrative because this type of weapon defies the easier categorization that marks the handgun v the bolt action rifle v the semi-auto rifle.

I have a tangential question: when the law enforcement types of the world started the switch away from the 9mm, why was the switch made to .40 caliber instead of the M1911? Time and time again I read that people in the know think the M1911 is the best all-around handgun available. Is there a rationale beyond politics and magazine capacity?

So say we all. As I continue to read on the Rhodesian War 80-90% of the commentary about the FAL is positive. One of my room mates in Cork, Ireland was a reservist in the Army of Ireland while we were attending University College Cork. He loved the FAL. He was trained as a sniper, and one of the things he liked about the FAL was that it offered the ability to reach out and touch targets with something approaching the range and power he was accustomed to, compared to the M16 or AK-47, yet with a semi-auto ability. I've never fired one. I've never even held one in my hands. I wouldn't choose it for a primary weapon in the US due to ammunition commonality considerations. But I do hear good things.

It occurs to me that I never addressed your question, Targan, which is whether gun owners in the United States think they are part of a militia by dint of owning a gun. I can’t think of an easy answer to that question, though you’d think there should be one.

Do most Americans think they are part of a militia that would be recognized by their 1780’s counterparts? Goodness, no! Keep the Devil between me and monthly drill.

Do most Americans think they are part of the so-called “unorganized militia”? This is harder to answer. I can say with confidence that many American gun owners believe whole-heartedly in the “unorganized militia”. And why not? Suppressing the cognitive dissonance resulting from using the term “unorganized militia” enables one to believe that one should have access to the weapons of overthrowing tyranny without having any obligations associated with said possession. Blame Title 10 and Alexander Hamilton for this. I rather doubt that very many gun owners who just have handguns believe they are part of a militia, but that’s just speculation on my part.

There’s a fair amount of mythology associated with the “unorganized militia”. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations started the ball rolling on this thing only a few years after the Constitution was ratified. This is the origin of the term “unorganized militia”. Doubtless you will discern my contempt for the term, my friends. I find “unorganized militia” has all the etymological logic of “dehydrated water”. Calling a mass of civilians in possession of firearms an “unorganized militia” is like calling a truckload of lumber and a bucket of nails an “unorganized house”. Suggesting that the republic shall be kept warm and dry by this “unorganized house” is a farce. Yet Title 10 as written has standing.

Belief in the idea of the “unorganized militia” is reinforced by popular mythology about the American Revolution in general and Lexington and Concord in particular. Americans seem to widely believe that farmers ran in from the fields, grabbed their muskets off the wall, and went off to defeat one of the best professional armies in the world as necessary. The expedient of hiding behind trees and rocks, combined with “true patriotism”, is held up as a force equal to organization, training, and discipline on the part of the British and their mercenaries. While this fantasy does not bear up under the slightest scrutiny, it dovetails with the traditional American aversion to militarization. Americans hate the draft. Believing that it is possible to defeat a well-trained, well-equipped, and well-disciplined professional force by employing a few basic tricks and calling on one’s deep love of country helps justify a general refusal to countenance compulsory service.

Yes the 7.62N is a powerful round but depending on the laws you can select ammo that will penetrate less (a hollow point that opens quick), and by being more accurate less likely to miss. One round that hits the bad guy and then goes through the next wall is better (safer) than six rounds that miss, in my opinion. Also there are exceptions to every rule, I do not care how much experience you have with the M2HB a .50 on tripod is not a good choice.:)

I know I got in trouble for it before but I still feel that more women in law enforcement necessitated the move away from higher calibers due to even those with athletic training not having sufficient grip strength.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php...9&postcount=10

My families personal preference for dedicated home defense is the shotgun all the way.

Assuming a pistol backup, nothing like filling a hallway with automatic shotgun fire to deter an enemy. With companies like Saiga and their magazine fed 12ga down to 410ga its down right ugly.

For my wife, muzzle control and aim won't be as much of an issue with the 410, just point it in the right direction and fire. Through in some slugs every couple of rounds and its a done deal.

Now if we are talking about armed organized invaders, a short barreled AR is much better suited. But the average burglar is NOT going to stick around long if they are getting suppressed by automatic shotgun fire...

I've heard a rumor that some departments are going back to 9MM because of recoil complaints. I'm a M1911 guy, but an agency with diverse firearms views should get Glocks or revolvers. Same with planning a shelter for SHTF.

Supposedly the Gen 4 Glocks have very little recoil, I wonder how 45 feels through one now?

I actually have practical experience here. I was the Range Training Officer for Fidelity Armored and assisted my Department's RTO at the County. It wasn't women who were the problem with high recoil weapons. It was everyone we were getting. America HAD a proud tradition of firearms ownership, but starting around the turn of the century that began to change. We began getting recruits who had never fired a gun at all. Many of these men and women came from urban areas and a large number of them had never even been in a fist fight before they came to us.

The 9mm verses, .40 S&W, verses .45ACP has a couple of issues that cause 9mm dominance. First is the size and weight of the weapon's frame. The 9mm has the smallest frame, lightest weight, and highest capacity (13 to 15) of the three primary police calibers. The .40 falls in the middle with an 11 to 13 round capacity, and the .45 has the largest and heaviest frame for an average round count of just 7 to 8 rounds. Here is the real mindblower in the debate though. The average Energy of a 9mm (no matter the bullet weight) is between 340 ft/lbs and 380 ft/lbs. The average Energy of a 180 grain (but NOT a 165 grain) .40 S&W is just over 400 ft/lbs. The average Energy of a .45ACP in a 230 grain loading is just 360 ft/lbs on average. As you can see from those numbers; There is only about a 50 ft/lb variation between the three calibers. If your getting the same Energy dump from all three calibers; You are better off picking the lightest weapon you can easily shoot. The smaller calibers will cost you less in firearms (initial costs and maintenance) and ammo costs. The fact that 9mmP also recoils less doesn't hurt either. My County adopted the .40 in the 165 grain HP loading because we upped our Energy Dump to 480 ft/lbs out of our Glock 23's and SIG 229's. This round had significant recoil compared to the lighter 180 grain loads though (especially in the Glock). We then upgraded to the .357 SIG round which increased our Energy Dump to well above 500 ft/lbs (depending on whether the 125 or 135 grain bullets were used). There were deputies who had significant issues qualifying with the .357 SIG (especially since we used an older qualification that had a 30 meter target in it). This prompted the sheriff to authorize both the .357 SIG and the .40 S&W.

They have the same recoil as the previous generations had. The advantage is that you can configure the backstraps to better fit your hand. This reduces muzzle climb and directs the recoil straight back into your hand (for better recoil control). This allows for faster follow up shots. Considering how light most polymer framed guns are; This is a very important upgrade.

Pro tip: You should never "resist" recoil (try to hold down the muzzle during recoil) or "lock" your wrist against recoil. You should hold your weapon as firmly as you would hold a hammer when driving nails. Firm enough to prevent "side to side squirm" but not with a "death grip." You should allow a pistol to "ride up" through it's recoil and concentrate on returning your wrists/hands to their "prefiring position." By not resisting the recoil and focusing on the return of your hands (and the weapon) to your initial "point of aim," you will suffer less "discomfort" in your hands and recover from shot to shot faster.

Never owning a Glock myself...but I am told that the double springs in the new Glocks make for a reduced felt recoil. Not sure...

I have produced an Energy Dump chart for Twilight2000 that uses the caliber's Energy Ratings (determined by bullet weight in grains multiplied by Velocity, then by velocity again, then by the constant 0.000002218) to determine the number of Damage Dice per Range Band in game. I have yet to type it up (It's my trucking co's busy season since we haul pipe). I'll try to post it for your use. All you have to do is look up a round's Energy (both the Shooters Bible and Gun Digest have printed charts in their books for my fellow "Old Schoolers"). You can find these at all of the ammo manufacturers' websites. You then compare the round in question's Energy at a given Range Band to the chart. This tells you the number of damage dice that round does in a given range band. I have ONE set of Energies for pistol and SMG rounds and a second for rifles. Be prepared to be surprised by the chart AND the Energies listed for various rounds. Preparing the chart was an "eye-opener" for me.

I does have a small effect on both felt recoil AND also reliability; As Glock can tell you from their recall of the gen 4 models (mostly 9mm's). They put .40 S&W springs in the gen 4 G19 and the guns wouldn't run. There was just too much spring strength for the 9mm. Everyone who had a recalled gun did say it was the "lightest" recoiling pistol they had ever shot. Too bad they wouldn't function properly.

All very interesting. I have no experience with the .40 caliber or the .357 SIG. I have some experience with the M1911, and I find it very manageable. I had a girlfriend who went shooting with me and found the M1911 very manageable once I showed her how to hold it properly. She was a little lady, too. She struggled with .357 Magnum, even though my large frame revolver has a fair amount of inertia. Her feedback was that she felt she could fire an M1911 all day, whereas after 7 rounds of .357 Magnum from a revolver she was done.

In any event, I would not care to try to provide the security of a free state with any handgun as my primary weapon.

The last decade saw a huge swing away from 9mmP to .40 cal S&W as the prefered "self-defense" caliber here in the U.S.A. There are "scientific" and opinion pieces ad-nauseum online supporting the latter as the better self-defense round. There are probably an equal number championing the 9mmP round. During this time, law enforcement, both federal and state migrated en masse to .40 cal S&W. It appears, however, that a swing back to 9mmP is underway. There are a couple of reasons why but one of them is apparently the stress that the 40mmS&W cartridge places on the working parts of most modern handguns. Slide cracks and other damage occurs in .40 cal S&W handguns much sooner than it does in those firing 9mmP. The U.S. Army has been looking, on and off, at potential replacements for the M9 pistol during this last decade, specifically at larger calibers, but the greater wear and tear exerted by .40 and .45 caliber rounds has, so far, held it back. We shall see.

I've only ever fired 9mm handguns so I can't personally comment as to felt recoil and controlability vis-a-vis other pistol calibers.

I have an open-ended question for this crew. What would distinguish a shotgun design intended for self-defense or hunting from military applications? I understand that some shotguns can serve in all three roles. More so than with other firearms, a shotgun’s roles are like a Venn diagram. However certain characteristics, like automatic fire, probably distinguish shotguns optimized for combat from shotguns for self-defense or hunting. I’m curious what this crew thinks.

choke, tube capacity, gauge and stock.

In no particular order...

This is an interesting question when you consider the weapon's tactical application. The primary advantage of the shotgun is in its flexibility of payload. The US military has determined that the only effective role for the shotgun is in CQB or breeching operations. The shotgun IS being evaluated as a "specialist weapon" for Marine Corps FAST teams where the scattergunner will have breeching rounds, the new TASER rounds, ILLUM, and beanbag rounds to deal with varying shipboard threats. There's even a small grenade round in development. This is the best role for the shotgun. With an effective range of just 25 to 35 meters with buck (50 meters with flechette) and a range of only about 100 meters with a slug (150m with a Sabot); your going to have a tough time in normal small unit engagements.

The flexibility of the shotgun's ammo package is only effective IF the operator can change ammo types with a minimum of effort. This is why the Army dropped the CAWS (Close Assault Weapons System) program. The applicants could produced a large volume of fire at short range but really didn't provide the "order of magnitude" increase in firepower the US sought.
The Army found magazine fed shotguns too cumbersome to use in CQB and too slow to swap ammo for flexible use.

The "Security" and "Military" shotguns share some common traits that "Operators" consider necessary for flexible CQB employment:

1. Pump or RELIABLE Semi-Auto operation of the weapon. The military is gravitating to Semi-autos because of the faster rate of fire they possess. I prefer the Bennelli M4, the Beretta 1200/1300 series, the Remington 1100 Tactical, or the Mossberg 930. Police and Security agencies tend to gravitate towards pump actions because of Cost and because some commonly used LE rounds like the Beanbag and TASER will not cycle even the best semi-auto. Some common shotguns are the ubiquitous Mossberg M500 and the more robust M590 (the US issues this to all branches in both 18" 7+1 shot and 20" 8+1 shot models), the Remington 870 (a USMC issue too), the Ithaca Model 37 bottom ejector, and the Winchester 1200/1300. Ironicly, the SPAS-12 was rejected because of reliability issues and the fact that the safety would allow the weapon to discharge while activated.

2. Extended magazine capacity in tube magazines. The military is evenly split between 18" to 20" cylinder bored guns with 7 to 8 round tube mags AND 3" Magnum chambers and identically equipped 14 to 15" guns with 4 to 5 round tube mags. These guns are most common with CQB or entry teams.
The Security and LE community is embracing short barreled "entry guns" due to their maneuverability in tight quarters. Both parties prefer tube magazines for one reason. If you have to transition from buck to slugs rapidly; the operator only has to slide a slug into the tube and "rack the action" (which is what the action release is for) to be ready to engage a target beyond the effective range of buckshot. This holds true for specialty ammo too. Since the default load for most users is 00 Buck; You may find yourself doing this often.

3. Simplicity of action. This is the problem with a large number of the mag fed and bullpup pump guns today. The Keltec KSG has reliability issues and requires a very complex "manual of arms" to top off its tube mags. The shell lift tab is in the way when trying to "top off" a magazine. This forces the operator to move the pump handle slightly forward and invert the gun for reloading with a partial tube mag. The UTAS UTS-15 bullpup pump is completely unreliable.

When I took my tactical shotgun course in the 90's; We were told the following about "The Big Dog on the Street."

Rule #1: Run "cruiser ready" (full mag, empty chamber). No modern shotgun is equipped with a "drop safety" and even a 3 foot drop onto concrete can set one off. It also requires "operator's knowledge" of the controls to find the action release and safety in order bring the gun into action.

Rule #2: Leave the tube mag ONE ROUND DOWN upon bringing the weapon into action. This is to facilitate a change of ammo in an emergency. The last round you insert into your mag WILL BE THE FIRST ROUND INTO THE CHAMBER. You can either fire the weapon to advance a round change OR use the action release to eject the unfired round from the chamber and advance the desired round.

Rule#3: "Feed your puppy!" at every opportunity, you should top off all BUT the last round of the magazine. If you are doing one of those "fancy slap a round through the ejection port reloads; Your already in it deep OR just wrong" (this is the instructor's phase). You should NOT have to be reloading a completely empty gun.

Rule#4: Zero your gun to your Slug of choice. Most shotguns will have a different point of aim between buckshot and slugs. Keep any holdoffs for the buckshot which is a short range area effect load. A gun which shoots to point of aim with both buck and slugs is ALWAYS A KEEPER (unless it's unreliable). GhostRings or Rifle sights are a godsend when shooting slugs at range (although Bead sights can get the job done). A good weaponlight like a Surefire is also of benefit.

Rule#5: Segregate Buck and Slugs. I prefer Slugs to go into vertical belt carriers like the ones Midway reloading sells and put my buck into the horizontal carriers sold there. "Ammunition Management" is the one skill that separates the pros from the "wannabes" in Tactical Shotgunning.

Don't discount the 20 gauge versions of these shotguns either. They will provide on average 74% of the stopping power of a 12 gauge with only 66% of the recoil.

Combat vs Hunting vs self defense shotgun
 

Webstral:
Like you said, most shotguns can serve either function, and on many shotguns you can easily change barrels to make it more effective for other type of work.

Most 'duck' hunting shotguns have fairly long barrels (26 - 28" not being uncommon) and at least in the US are normally limited to 3 rounds (due to laws), though many shotguns can carry 5 rounds but use a 'limiter' (which is just a plastic piece that takes up space and can be removed during normal cleaning.

"modern" Home defense shotguns will likely have short barrels (18 - 20") and be pump or semi auto having five shot magazines.

Depending on who is likely to be defending against what, you might run into other calibers of weapons. I've given 3 female friends/relatives shotguns chambered for .410 shells, since they were both 'slight and relativey unfamiliar with weapons. In two of the three cases, the weapons were far more likley to be used against racoons but gave them peace of mind. In the third instance a friend had an ex who was 'stalking her.' We got her a pump action .410 shotgun and I made her go to the range five or six times over about a year. (We also got her a concealed carry license and a .38 revolver but thats irrelevent to your question.) It was not what I would chose to go into combat with, but it was the right weapon for her, my 12 ga Rem 870 was too big and kicked too much for her.

Most military tactical shotguns will have shorter barrels (18-20") larger magazines, and may be able to accept bayonets or lights. Shotguns are not used all that often by miltary (I think T2K plays makes them seem more effective at long range then they are)

During T2K era the USMC used remington 870s with 18 or 20 inch barrels and bayonet lugs, equipped with magazine extenders that let you carry 8 rounds (7 in tube, 1 in chamber IIRC). Some but not all of them had a collapsable stock. They were not a particularly common weapons, being used primarily for 'less lethal' situations. Combat Engineers and Recon Marines often had them for urban breaching operations (i.e. blowing either the locks or the hinges off of doors). These ones were more likely to have the collapsable stock as they were a mission specific 'secondary' weapon.