Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Over 45 years of age. Am I still covered by the "militia" portion of 2A?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post


    Just wanted to see what kind of interesting discussion this might arouse:



    Ran into an interesting piece of information on another post. It raises a question. If you are over 45 and not covered in section 313 of title 32, are you still covered under 2A?



    TITLE 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13



    ยง311. Militia: composition and classes



    (a) The militia of the united states consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.



    (b) The classes of the militia are-

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not member of the National Guard of the Naval Militia.



  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Section 313 of Title 32 refers to persons with prior military experience who could serve as officers. These persons remain members of the militia until age 64.

    By your premises, apparently not.

    Most Second Amendment advocates consider the prefatory clause(s) of the 2A moot.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    You miss the point of the 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."

    If a similar amendment read as follows;

    A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

    I have changed only 4 words in the second statement, which is about a supposed right to education.

    Would it be logical that since the "Electorate" consists of those 18 years of age and older, that those under the age of 18 are not allowed to keep and read books.

    It is not logical as the education of the "Electorate" is only one part of the right to keep and read books, just as the "Militia" is only one part of the right to keep and bear Arms, and thus the right to keep and bare arms is not limited to those between 17 and 45.



    Tarzan

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737

    Post imported post

    [img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/NO/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/img]Remember diagremming?

    The phrase to keep and bear arms contains a compound infinitive and the common direct object of both parts. In other words, keep and bear arms apply to the militia and the people as seperate subjects.

    I hope some brilliant attorney includes this in their brief on the DC case.



  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737

    Post imported post

    PS: I'm part of the over the hill gang!!!

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    color of law wrote:
    PS: I'm part of the over the hill gang!!!
    We get it. You don't have to diagram THAT for us.

    By the way, does that diagram say keep and bear "ams" or "arns"?

    Just as long as it doesn't say "rams." I don't want to go through that again! People baring their rams in public was too much.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434

    Post imported post

    Looks like you and I are out of the militia (unless youwere an officer) but we still get to keep and bear arms. Is that cool or what?

  8. #8
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms is relevant even if said person isn't part of the militia.

    The people being armed just makes it easier for a well regulated (Read well supplied and in good working order)militia (of the whole body of the people[of ages you specified])to exist, and such a militia happens to be beneficial (in fact, necessary)to the security of a Free State.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •