The Bill of Rights. Specifically the 2nd and 5th Ammendments.

I want to talk about an issue that has been staring me in the face, but it seems no one else sees it. First off I would like to provide the full text of both the 2nd and 5th amendments.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There seem to be many people arguing that the Militia should be any able bodied person over a certain age, etc. according to the 2nd. I tend to agree with that however what really upsets me is a provision in the 5th amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime....except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger."

Considering we are in the neverending war on terror anyone that is part of a Militia can be held acountable for infamous crimes. If we use the definition of militia from above then that would be pretty much anyone with a firearm. It seems to me like that is a slippery slope. I really do not like where this is going. I wanted to get this information out there and see what the rest of you think.

I will be pretty busy over the next couple days, but I wanted to get this out there and will reply to as many questions as I can, time permitting.

Thank you all for your replies.

"war" in the context of the constitution is an act of congress.

the last time congress declared "war" was ww2.

so that part would probably not apply until the is an actual war declared by congress.

Originally posted by randomname
"war" in the context of the constitution is an act of congress.

the last time congress declared "war" was ww2.

so that part would probably not apply until the is an actual war declared by congress.

Added more emphasis on the part about it not only being a time of war but also a time of public danger. That part is what worries me.

reply to post by subject1145


For a militia, to actually be a 'Militia'... doesn't it have to be recognized by the federal government. I'd imagine that there is some form of application or registration.

Also, if I'm not mistaken... can't a militia actually demand training from the federal government?

The reason I say this... is, just because someone owns a gun, doesn't mean that they are then recognized as being a part of a militia, and there for not answerable for any crimes committed by any so called 'militia'.

Just thought I'd throw this tid bit in there:

Training

Training standards vary widely. The Military Emergency Management Specialist (MEMS) qualification created by the State Guard Association of the United States has become a common training focal point among state defense forces. Alabama, California, Indiana, Texas, Ohio and others have adopted the MEMS Badge as a basic qualification required of all members desiring promotion. Training is conducted through MEMS academies in each state, and includes course material provided online by FEMA and other agencies, as well as practical experience in local disaster planning and exercise management.[11]

Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) are being organized by several SDFs by utilizing training offered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Citizen Corps. Some states follow the lead of the Army and offer a permanent tab (worn in a similar manner as the Army's Ranger and Sapper tabs) as an incentive to become certified as part of the local or unit CERT team. CERT teams are open to any able-bodied citizen and are a good way for SDFs to integrate into their communities.

Weapons qualification and training is provided in some SDFs. However, most SDFs do not require weapons proficiency. A 2006 report by the U.S. Freedom Foundation, an organization affiliated with the State Guard Association of the United States,[12] recommended minimum standards for state defense forces, including weapons training, but the report has been largely ignored. Some SDFs have laws that in the event of deployment by order of the state legislature and/or governor, they will become armed.

en.wikipedia.org...

Besides state supported militias, such as reserves, and guards... there are only 21 militias that I can find.



The part I find most interesting:

"Training is conducted through MEMS academies in each state, and includes course material provided online by FEMA"

Which I think is awesome, that FEMA aka, Federal Emergency Management Agency, a Federal Agency provides training material for Militias that then in return may be the very information that helps American citizens protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

The only problem I can see arising from this though.... is that it would be easy enough to influence militia combat strategies, know their means, and then any tyrannical government supporters would know exactly what said militia's next moves are.

Actually, Service in a militia is not connected in any way with our right to own firearms and use them in any lawful way we deem fit. So said the Supreme Court and that's the law of the land until they reverse themselves or someone writes another Constitutional Amendment or major law they can rule on.

Yes. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer filed dissenting opinions, each joined by the other as well as Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Source - D.C. vs Heller - 2009

It's going to make the next appointment replacing a traditionally Conservative Justice THE major political fight we've seen yet if it comes in the next 4 years, IMO. It could determine many things about the future of our nation, depending on who.

reply to post by retirednature


The Definition of Militia from Webster's Dictionary "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service"

I guess it would really depend on what definition of Militia they decide to use.