Posted on 01/09/2008 7:34:55 PM PST by PeterPrinciple
Most American men are unaware that they are in the army, or, as described by the Militia Act of 1903 (popularly known as the Dick Act), the unorganized militia. The main purpose of the Dick Act was to sort out over a century of confusion over the relationship between the state militias (now known as the National Guard) and the federal forces. The 1903 law was the first of many laws hammered out to create the system now in use. But in the last century, not much attention has been paid to the little known "unorganized militia" angle. This force contained every able-bodied adult male who was not a part of the organized militia. The 1903 law legalized the right not to be part of the organized militia, because a 1792 law had mandated that every adult male be part of the militia. The problem was, most men didn't want to be bothered. To deal with this, state governors created two classes of militia; paid (who trained and were armed and organized into units) and unorganized (everyone else.)
The militia is a state institution, and predates the founding of the United States. It harkens back to the ancient tribal practice, where every able bodied male turned out to defend the tribe. During the colonial period, this really only meant anything in frontier areas, where hostile Indians sometimes required the use an armed militia force. In the late 18th century, only about ten percent of American families possessed a firearm, usually a musket or shotgun. Weapon ownership was much more common on the frontier, and in more settled areas, men with muskets often joined the organized militia more to be with their hunting buddies, than to prepare for war. The urban militia was sometimes used as a paramilitary force, when there was civil disorder or some kind of natural disaster. During the American Revolution, the militia served mainly as a police force, especially since about a third of the population were loyalists.
Currently, the "unorganized militia" is expected to come up when the Supreme Court again considers the laws pertaining to the right to possess firearms. Many localities have outlawed or regulated that right, which is guaranteed (but not precisely spelled out) in the Constitution. Nevertheless, if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know.
Yup! Selective Service makes it mandatory to own a weapon. IMHO!
Aside from the whole stupidity of how the article is slanted, I suspect the author forgot the fact that all males of that age are already registered for “the draft” or “Selective Service” and this are already subject to military service.
So if I understand you, If you are a male between 17 and 45 you MUST have a firearm.
It’s just the law - don’t expect the libs on the court to pay it any mind. Will be a 5-4 decision, prob with Kennedy as the swing vote. Not sure which way it wil go...
Let me also state that because of selective service, everyone can possess a firearm.
I hope it’s not that literal.
Hey!
I’m over 45.
Where do I have to go to sign up?
The DC filing in the Heller case contradicts the DC Militia Act.
Just in case anyone was wondering if liberals follow the law.
Personally, I am disgusted by arguments that are internally inconsistent - as their filing is.
Im 52...in great health... weigh the same that I did when I married 25 years ago... and if needed... I am there pal.
LLS
Probably the more appropriate weapons in this age are assault lobbyists and hand held special prosecutors.
its what the ACLU would be were it not a Marxist front
org.
I'm a little skeptical of this gem.
Yes, all able body men between 18 to 45 are subject to militia duty. However, it does not require them to maintain arms.
Also, even in a national emergency the militia is now the last to be called. They will actually call able bodied military retirees and veterens back into service first.
I used to have the precedence list of who gets called first in an emergency. Of course, all guard and reserve (and those in the inactive individual ready reserve) go first. I believe retirees with 20 but less than 30 years of service come next and then veterens are in the mix somewhere. I’m not real sure of my facts here though.
Hey, I am outside that age range, but I keep my M1 Garand handy...I’m not out looking for conflict, but if it comes my way, I won’t be helpless.
This is incorrect, and demolishes the credibility of this author and the article. He sounds as if he's been reading Michael Bellesiles fake "research".
Ditto. Some left wing nard bag wrote a book to that effect a few years ago and his conclusions were found to be Bovine scat.
That's the nard bag.
That was Michael Bellesiles - his book was exposed as a fraud. BTW, I don't have a cite handy, but there has been discussion of the Strategy Page site by other Freepers who have stated that it is run by leftists. That might explain this "poison-pill" lie claiming only ten percent gun ownershp in a seemingly "gun-friendly" article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.