[Webstral]

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.