Issue 391 2nd Amendment and Militias July 31, 2014

If you have read the second Amendment of the United States Constitution, you will know that it mentions militias.  But the right to bear arms is not dependent on the right to form a militia, but instead certifies our right to organize into militias to defend the nation.  So how do we reconcile that the 2nd Amendment mentions militias and what do militias actually have to do with the 2nd Amendment.  

First and Foremost The 2nd Amendment: 

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.

History:  As I understand, the mentioning of militias has to do with the States and localities and their right to organize militias.  The militias at the time were drawn up from the local population and could range in age (depending on what State or area you lived in) from as young as 15 to as old as 75.  However, the States, and especially local governments could not afford to secure equipment for these militias.  As such, it was up to the local population to secure their own guns and other weapons so that they could serve.

A militia man had many roles, they acted as a police force, a military force, hunting parties to kill dangerous wild animals and depending on the local government could act as fire fighters or in any capacity the locals needed.  However, local governments and State governments did set standards for equipment for the roles these militias had to play.  So it was up to the militia members to again gather and secure their own equipment.  But unlike today’s military, militias were not a standing army.  They could buy a gun for the short period of time needed to fight and then sell it.  They received only informal training at worst and but are not the equals to their full time counterparts (in terms of training and equipment).  So to think that militias are on the same terms with an organized military in nonsense and corrupts the purpose of a militia which is to simply fight and then disband as the need arose.

Rectifying the situation:  To say that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with militias is false.  But to say militias have the exclusive right to bear arms is utter nonsense.  States and local governments dictated the age and equipment levels needed to serve in a militia when people were called up.  It was a volunteer based system, but people could be compelled (drafted) if the situation dictated.  So, in order to ensure everyone at least had marginally the same equipment levels, people were essentially compelled to get a gun without actual force of law.  Also these militia members had to be ready to organize at any time.  So the right to bear arms is partially secured by the fact that people had to buy their own weapons in case they were called to fight.  So securing the right to bear arms allows people to form militias when and if needed.

Conclusion:  The people are allowed to fight for their country whether that enemy is foreign or domestic, a national government or a terrorist organization or other possible enemy.  Guns play a smaller role today than in the past where people needed them to hunt with and maintain a livelihood in many instances (though in some parts of the country this still holds true).  The idea that a person who volunteers or the potential to volunteer for a militia aids in the proof that we have the right to bear arms.  They had to buy their own guns and so even if they were not in an actual militia yet, they knew they may (by circumstances) be forced into one at some point in time.  As such they need the right to bear arms to be ready to take action.