Keep it a secret but I've yet to meet any Irish Catholic ISIS members in Overland Park yet! ;)

The main issue as I can see it arises when the National Guard is federalised for whatever reason and then transferred out of the state. Some National Guard units would be earmarked for transfer to other regular army units, or a National Guard formation of the size of a brigade or division could reach full mobilisation and be deemed ready for redeployment as part of the Federal US Army, but surely not all of the National Guard would leave the state. Training and support staff would remain in the state, and would National Guard regiments and battalions not be regenerated/recreated; example 1, 2 & 3 Kansas National Guard infantry battalions are sent to Texas so Kansas National Guard forms and starts training 4, 5 & 6th infantry battalions to replace them; ?

Also the fact that State Guards (militias) are not armed sort of says a lot for how much trust the US Federal and state's government has in them.

In T2K I could see the State Guard being a very divisive and subversive force for a number of reasons.

In Milgov controlled areas which would constitute about half of the continental United States I could not see any State Guard force being tolerated. Milgov split from the civilian government because it didn't support or trust the way it had handled the war and the reconstruction of the US. Milgov by its nature would not allow any armed body exist outside of its total control. In Milgov controlled areas any surviving State Guard forces would likely be classified as Civgov traitors, criminals or terrorists.

Civgov would be more tolerant of the State Guards due to the fact that it would still have some adherence to pre-war laws, and would hope that State Guard forces would remain lawful. However it also lacks the manpower to intimidate or confront rogue State Guard forces in many areas so I could see the State Guard in Civgov areas being either a force of good or evil.

The State Guard would also be a fertile recruitment ground for New America or other extreme right wing groups in certain areas, due to the fact that the State Guard are going to be drawn in the main from the White ethnic group with conservative or prejudice views. I could see many existent State Guard forces in Civgov areas being influenced or in cahoots with the local New American cell. Regionalism and the realities of the Twilight War would also influence State Guard members. For example the State Guard in the rural North-East and Mid-Western states are not going to be to helpful to refugees escaping New York, Boston, Chicago or any big city, and in New England maybe anti-Canadian too. The State Guard in California and the South-West are going to be hostile to all Mexicans (including Mexican-Americans) and I'm not even going to talk about how the predominantly white State Guards from rural areas in the southern states are going to treat minorities.

Mass State Defense Force
 

First off, thank you for the instigation of a delightful couple of hours of delving into Massachusetts State Guard, militia laws, and so on.

In Massachusetts, militias are governed by by Title V (Militias), Chapter 33 (Militias - the only chapter in Title V) - originally drawn up in 1893 with periodic amendments, insertions, and deletions.

Effectively, at present, the Mass State Defense Force (current name; in 1994 it was the Mass State Guard) is a supplementary force (supplementary to the National Guard) who may be called out for state emergencies. They are presently unarmed; the current organizational structure includes a brigade staff and three battalions:

• 1st Battalion (Operational Support),
• 2nd Battalion (Professional Support), and
• 3rd Battalion (Medical Response Force).

The Medical Response Force is a versatile unit organized in principal to staff Federal Medical Stations, which are deployable healthcare platforms capable of delivering large-scale primary healthcare services. The latest recruiting information I can find shows the MSDF looking for:

1. Persons with prior, honorable military service in any Uniformed Service of the United States (especially those with emergency management, logistics, and/or operations experience)
2. Ordained, ecclesiastically endorsed clergypersons (chaplains)
3. Health services professionals (Chiropractors, Dentists, Optometrists, Physicians, Podiatrists, Psychologists, and Veterinarians as well as Audiologists, Biomedical Laboratory Technologists, Clinical Mental Health Professionals, Dieticians, Health Service Administrators, Nurse Practitioners, Pharmacists, Physical Therapists, Physician Assistants, Public Health Specialists, Occupational Therapists, Registered Nurses, Respiratory Therapists, and Social Workers)
4. Licensed attorneys authorized to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Perhaps in T2K, the Lawyer company can be ordered to charge a machine gun nest armed with subpoenas... :-)

Clearly, at present, the MSDF is not a military-minded organization.

However, at other points in time, such as during WW2 or the Vietnam War when the 26th Yankee Division deployed out of state (and out of country), the MSDF can organize and train militia units to replace the National Guard during times of deployment (which happens by V1 cannon).

There were some interesting bits in the Massachusetts Law, like this one regarding the National Lancers:

Section 4A. The National Lancers shall be organized as the commander-in-chief directs, and may retain its name and the right to wear such distinctive uniform as may be approved by the commander-in-chief, and its ancient privileges, including its method of selecting its officers and conducting its internal affairs, so long as the same are not repugnant to the laws of the commonwealth or of the United States. Said organization may use land and stable facilities belonging to the commonwealth for its activities, equipment and exercises without charge and may receive from the commonwealth, its departments, divisions or bureaus or the federal government, without charge, any surplus equipment, goods, or other materials, as are available, provided that all such equipment, goods and materials remain the property of the commonwealth and are accounted for as such.

The National Lancers were started in 1838 as a local militia organization (two troops, 64 men); they actively served in the American Civil War (part fo the 1st Mass Cavalry) and WW I (dismounted and made part of an MG battalion in the 26th Yankee Division); in WW2, they were again dismounted and made part of a AAA battalion. After WW2, they were officially removed from the National Guard, but were part of the Mass State Guard. They have a 99 year lease on a stable facility on state-owned land; they are allowed by law to state military and stable facilities without charge; they have the right to select their own officers; and to retain their own uniform (designed after Napoleonic Polish Lancer uniforms in flashy red and blue, complete with Czapka). They are used for ceremonial purposes, such as escorting the Governor to Harvard's commencement, escorted JFK to his inauguration, and served as a mounted guard at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

So, I'm picturing a few corrupt fellows seizing the horses and uniforms (plus guns) and parading around a crushed Massachusetts armed with a copy of this section of the law claiming upkeep (at gunpoint if necessary) based on that last sentence. "You're part of the Commonwealth, ain't you? These horses need fodder. So do those troopers. Says right here 'no charge.' Take it up with the Governor. Look, we keep down the bandits - it's tough work. Hey, and is that a real Tommy gun? Yeah, I'll take that, too. Phil, George, shoot him if he moves suddenly. Here, I'll write you out a receipt, and I'll bring it back when the current emergency is over..."

On another note, the recent TV show Dark Skies features a Massachusetts militia unit (formed up in the wake of an alien invasion; the show follows member of the "2nd Mass." The 2nd Mass was formed up last in 1898, and went off to fight in Cuba. (I have no idea if the writer's picked them on purpose because they had really existed...).

As an aside to the aside, in the show, the 2nd Mass is armed as I expect most State Guard units would end up - armed with the tail end of weapons selections from the back of warehouses or collected civilian arms, because the regular toys were already in use. So, various assault rifles, M-16s, M-16EZs, hunting rifles...

Another interesting point of Law was this one about the duties of the militia:

Section 41. In case of a tumult, riot, mob or body of persons acting together by force to violate or resist the laws of the commonwealth, or when such tumult, riot or mob is threatened, or in case of public catastrophe or natural disaster, and the usual police provisions are inadequate to preserve order and afford protection to persons and property, and the fact appears to the commander-in-chief, to the sheriff of a county, to the mayor or city manager of a city or to the selectmen of a town, the commander-in-chief, upon his initiative or at the request of such sheriff, mayor or city manager or selectmen, may issue his order directed to the commander of any organization or unit of the armed forces of the commonwealth directing him to order his command, or any part thereof, to appear at a time and place therein specified to aid the civil authority in suppressing such violations, preserving order, affording such protection and supporting the laws.

So, a local Board of Selectmen (say of my home town of Medway) could call out a town militia and order them to seize the breakaway region of East Medway (called by its residents the town of Millis since 1885)… I'd say 130 years of separatist rebellion is quite riot and tumult enough!

(And you though we were all staid liberals in the Northeast.)

Then there was this bit about armories:

Section 129. Except as provided in section one hundred and thirty, no body of men shall maintain an armory or associate together as a company or organization for drill or parade with firearms, or so drill or parade, except the armed forces of the United States, the armed forces of the commonwealth, and, the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts;

Other than bringing to mind the interesting quibble about where is the line between "large gun collection" and "armory," this sure sounds like the National Lancers can run around collecting arms and ammunition in private hands. As long as they avoid actual Federal or state military units....

At any rate, if you have some spare time, you can amuse yourself by looking up your state's militia laws. You may even come up with a game idea based on some of your local wrinkles...

Uncle Ted

ALCON:

Thanks for the awesome comments. Again, I've stolen so much from this forum and now I'm glad that I've given a small piece back. I'm a little preoccupied right now so I intend to have more detailed answers soon but here are my initial thoughts:

-Swaghauler: Great observation! The real issue is the fact that the PCA (Posse Comitatius Act) does not apply (by law) to anyone other than the US Army (and, by the fact that the USAF came from the Army, the USAF) and by policy the Navy (and their similar "child" the USMC). Thus, state militias fall within the purview of state law regarding law enforcement, not the PCA. So, anything is possible if one is operating under state law unless it violates state or federal law.

-RN7:

a. I will not believe you until you tell me the best Irish bar in JoCo. Otherwise, I will shoot you on sight!

b. with respect to the "who replaces who" in the NG, that depends on what version you are playing. (Round out BDEs and Wartrace vs. Rumsfeld's pick and play vs. "Regionally Aligned Units")

c. Concur 100% that in a V.1 (or, frankly, any T2K universe) state guards would be a fertile recruiting ground for extremists. And, depending on the location and the demographics, it would not just be New America. In the Southwest, it could be a state guard unit who identified more with Mexico or their native tribe than the US (either MIL or CIV GOV).

-Unkated: You're welcome! That was a freaking awesome analysis and anyone who takes the time to research his/her state's militia statues is alright in my book! Especially when it's the state that started it al!

While I loved your legal research, the line about assaulting a position with lawyers really made me laugh. The correct answer is that while the lawyers were trying to show each other how smart they are the gunner in the position would have killed them all.

More later and thanks for the awesome feedback!

^This seems very likely to me too.

The issue of the legal standing of the militia is a fascinating one. I think ultimately it may take the judiciary. There’s a corpus of law with contradictory ideas, along with some ideas that make no sense at all but which have standing because challenging said nonsense ideas would mean hurting a number of different interests. The federal government’s argument is in keeping with the first modification to the states’ militia back in the 1790’s. The states’ counterargument also aligns predictably with their perceived interests.


I think an important aspect of the discussion is addressing what the militia were intended to do when the Constitution was ratified. I agree completely, swaghauler, that one of the two original missions of the states’ militia was as a strategic counterbalance against the emergence of a domestic despot controlling the professional military. In my mind, this is beyond question. Of course, the judiciary has final say. If the federal chief executive is at the top of the militia chain of command, as is the case with the National Guard, then the psychological factors that make the professional force susceptible to being the arm of domestic tyranny apply to the National Guard as well. In order to counterbalance the professional force, states’ militia must belong to the states and only the states.


Of course, this is all academic. In order to counterbalance the stupendously powerful professional forces of the federal government, states’ militia would have to have massive manpower. I would think no less than 10 million would suffice. Realistically, it would probably take 15-20 million militiamen with small arms to counterbalance the professional force. I don’t foresee this kind of force ever coming into being.

Its a secret but mine is Conroy's Public House on W95th Street just down the road from the Islamic Madrasa that masquerades as a golf club between Nall and Roe. I can walk to it and walk home afterwards which is definitely a plus. Don't tell anyone!

You know that it's a serious, legitimate issue when this guy weighs in.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/07...eat-to-texans/

Wow. Just wow.

:rolleyes:

I have an automatic antipathy response when it concerns Fake...er, Fox News.

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.