Grassroots Action Proposed for Constitutional Militia

By David Codrea

Grassroots Action Proposed for Constitutional Militia
Grassroots Action Proposed for Constitutional Militia
Oath Keepers
Oath Keepers

United States -(AmmoLand.com)- “It is rather pointless to talk about ‘militia-suitable arms' without talking about the Militia and their revitalization as the only way to preserve ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,'” Edwin Viera commented in response to my latest update on the status of a Maryland gun ban case in the 4th Circuit Court of appeals.

If there are no constitutional Militia in operation, and this state of affairs is lawfully within the power of Congress and the States to continue, then what meaning does ‘militia-suitable arms' have in practice?

“If, on the other hand, the Militia were in operation, then essentially any and every type of ‘Arms' which had any conceivable use by the Militia (which is essentially every conceivable type of “Arms”) would be absolutely protected by the Second Amendment and the Militia Clauses of the original Constitution, and thus secure against phony judicial ‘tests' such as ‘strict scrutiny' and ‘intermediate scrutiny,' which anyone with two brain cells to rub together can understand to be schemes for defeating constitutional rights, not protecting them.”

He's right, of course. And deterrent effects of independent “We are Everywhere” potentials notwithstanding, the Founders were right when they deemed “a well regulated Militia … necessary to the security of a free State.”

But that doesn't mean it's “pointless to talk about militia-suitable arms.” The report was about a case where collectivists are trying to ban them, and what's in front of the court is more narrowly focused . The larger Militia point and solution – especially what it will take to actualize it – will not be resolved in this particular case.

Put another way, if someone is attacking you, your focus will be on immediately stopping him, even though a greater societal goal to work toward exists. Sure, I want to win the battle and the war and establish liberty and justice for all. Right now, though, I just don't want this guy to stick a bayonet in my guts.

There is a group working right now toward restoration of the Constitutional Militia and other goals, and it's sharing that message and hoping to recruit members and support:

AmericaAgain! I was approached by their founder a few months back and, while I found merit in many of their ideas, had concerns about the way they were presented. I see they have a reworked video message which merits being shared, because it opens the door to discussing what one group is going forward with to make the Militia as articulated in the Constitution a reality.

I won't be surprised if there are still some people who will find points of contention, which is not the discussion I hope to invite here. I'm asking you to look at the ideas presented in the video, and particularly focus on what you think could work and what your role in making that happen could be.

David Codrea
David Codrea

About David Codrea:

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs. David is an associate editor for Oath Keepers. David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

He also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Subscribe
Notify of
28 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DesertRat
DesertRat
4 years ago

The Dick act is just that. A Dick Act.

And a militia can not be well trained, unless it is well regulated.

I’m going to guess everyone here has read the Federalist Papers. Obviously. As you might find in there they why and reason for the 2nd amendment.

Ricochet
Ricochet
4 years ago
Reply to  DesertRat

D-Rat, You refuse to be educated on the meaning of well-regulated as used in the 2nd Amendment. Well-regulated means regularly trained, as a standing army was known as regulars. The term had nothing to do with the militia being under the control o the government, in fact, just the opposite. The militia was supposed to have the means to rebuff a tyranical government. The individual right of the people was to include self-defense and the ability to serve in a militia, so the right to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed. That doesn’t really leave much gray… Read more »

Pat Hines
Pat Hines
4 years ago

There will be no restoration of the rule of law through voting. As we all know, or should know, is that our “second amendment rights” are in no way dependent on the US Constitution which created the US government.

I call them intrinsic, self defense rights. Rights which I own as private property.

Rocky
Rocky
4 years ago

Our nation’s Framers greatly distrusted a ‘Standing Army’ and even a ‘Select Militia’ (today’s National Guard and Reserves), trusting only in the ‘General Militia’, or ‘…all of the people capable of bearing arms, excepting only a few public officials.’ Moving up to more modern times, the ‘Militia Act of 1903’ created the ‘Unorganized Militia’, to consist of all males, between the ages of 18 and 46 and veterans up to age 60 (above which was considered as being old age at the time) who were expected to obtain suitable weapons and maintain themselves in a sufficient condition of training and… Read more »

USPatriotOne
USPatriotOne
4 years ago

I attended Law School and hold a JD and we (the students in my Constitutional Law Class) cover the 2nd Amendment in-depth, and this individuals views are incorrect. We have to view the 2nd Amendment through the eyes of the founding fathers and what the meaning was and the intent behind the 2nd Amendment. That drives the logical test to determine whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies today. Well the 2nd Amendment not only applies today but for the future. The right to bear Arms is for every U.S. Citizen, and if need be, to have those Arms to… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  USPatriotOne

Well said. I am impressed. My really left wing, socialist Con Law professor did not cover any of the Second Amendment. When asked about it, he made it known that he considered the question impertinent, and stated that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean anything anymore.

TANSTAAFL2
TANSTAAFL2
4 years ago

Several years before the Heller decision (when the Miller decision’s militia-rights interpretation of the 2A still held sway), I met David Kopel at a Gun Rights Policy Conference. I told him I though anti-gunners were taking a very dangerous course in citing Miller because, while the ruling declared the 2A did not protect Miller’s right to possess a short-barrel shotgun because it was not suitable for militia use, I could cite Miller and say it DOES protect my right to own an M-16, MP-5, and other weapons because they WERE in current military use. Kopel’s response was a smile and… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago

Oh, and I forgot to mention full auto…yep they are guaranteed by the Second Amendment, too. There is a National Fire Arms Act of 1934 transfer tax, but yep, legal and guaranteed. M113s, Russian BMPs all for sale to US citizens. And what is this “… civilians should be allowed…” business? The decision to purchase, pay for, own, maintain, and employ belongs to the individual member of the unorganized militia, not any government.
If our armed forces were ever defeated, God forbid, an invading army would not find a docile unarmed population to enslave.

Rocky Mtn Sportsman
Rocky Mtn Sportsman
4 years ago

Does terminology like “militia suitable arms” suggest that we should be legalizing full-auto machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, surface-to-air missiles, mortars, etc.? Is that the intent of the 2nd Amendment? If so, why stop there? Perhaps civilians should be allowed to possess tanks, land mines, fighter jets, chemical weapons of mass destruction. Heck, what’s the problem with a few nukes in every American household? Freedom baby! Liberty! Don’t tread on me! The Constitution! The 2nd Amendment! Buncha Rambo wannabes.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago

Prior to Lincoln, that is exactly where the weapons came from. The average Joe brought his rifle, ammunition, knife etc. Wealthy people put together the artillery batteries, etc. Oh and by the way lots of people own tanks, artillery and fighter jets. Even war ships. Didn’t you know? We buy them from the poor countries that the U.S. government gave them to. You can buy British tanks by the dozen if you can afford the tank, delivery, and maintenance. The U.S. government will trade you an M-60 tank straight up for a tank that they don’t have in there collection.… Read more »

freewill
freewill
4 years ago

you cant afford a surface to air missile, and yes, every thing except a nuke…theres never any need for chemicals, they should all be banned, you cant afford a fighter jet let alone the fuel to fly one..Switzerland allows most any weapon a person can afford, its a law for every man 18-43 to own and posseses a fully automatic weapon and have an emergency ammo pak of 24 rounds, it must be accounted for…, and a standing army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people

eric
eric
4 years ago

Full auto is legal , with a NFA form 4 . Destructive devices like 20mm rifles are legal with NFA form 1 or 4 as applicable. Jets are for sale Casa Saeta , Mig 29, Mig 14 , Mig 19 , Tanks are for sale along with armored cars , usually in UK . Your ignorance of allowable arms is astounding , considering you write so well to express your distaste for such firearms. Were you raised by just your momma and are a momma’s boy , or in a sissy country like the UK where killing an intruder in… Read more »

Otto Didact
Otto Didact
4 years ago
Reply to  eric

I remember a few years back where a Fouga Magister advanced trainer/light attack jet was on sale at eBay Motors. Heck there’re a couple for sale in the U.S. right now. For a while Star Trek TNG’s Worf – Michael Dorn – owned a Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star. A few decades ago Some guy not only owned but set out to break a speed record in an F-104. IMS, he succeeded but while he was flying the thing above the mach @ low altitude, the aircraft traveled a couple of hundred feet while the nerve impulses from his eyes were… Read more »

mikrat
mikrat
4 years ago

You don’t need to form a Militia to be Militia – Every Man already is Militia. And “well regulated” does not mean what most seem to think – it means to be well trained, NOT Controlled.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  mikrat

This is a stunningly erudite and correct statement of the law. Well done, sir.

Ronald
Ronald
4 years ago

It is a very good legal idea will a solid base of argument . Count me in

HRColey
HRColey
4 years ago

While the idea of forming a citizen militia sounds good, it’s not very realistic as very few people would be willing to serve. The most troubling thing was the narrator’s statement that the militia was the reason the founders included the Second Amendment. That’s the same thing that the anti-gun people have been saying for years now and it’s just as wrong when he said it as it is when the gun-grabbers say it. Gun owners have struggled for years to have the Second Amendment acknowledged as an individual right and it seems this organization is willing to throw that… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  HRColey

Willing to serve has nothing to do with it. Every man ( and I suspect now a days women, too) capable of bearing arms is automatically a member of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia was the reason that the Second Amendment was enumerated. The founding fathers , and the rest of the population at that time, had a great fear of large standing armies. They planned to defend this nation by calling together the unorganized militia, with each man’s individual weapons. The gun grabbers tried to fool everyone into thinking that militia was an organized militia or national guard.… Read more »

Kevin
Kevin
4 years ago

If the second Amendment does not confer an individual right, but only a collective right, then every other Bill of Rights freedom may be construed by the courts in the same way. How would the public react to an interpretation that religious freedom permitted individuals to worship only in “a well regulated” church? Or print articles only in “a well regulated news outlet”?

Otto Didact
Otto Didact
4 years ago
Reply to  Kevin

Surely you don’t expect a lie-beral to make a consistent argument? Just because they argue out of one side of their mouths that the 2nd Amendment is a “collective” right does not in any preclude the from arguing out of the other side of their mouth that all the other rights are individual rights.Logical consistency is not a hallmark of liberalism. They are the folks who INVENTED believing six impossible (or self contradictory) things before breakfast. Further, I’d wager that if you would hear some version Emerson’s statement that that “consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

Rick
Rick
4 years ago

Where is this video?

Jerry Davis
Jerry Davis
4 years ago

liberal’s…and all political correct parties……GO TO HELL…..You America haters,freedom haters, dictator wannabe’s.

Dave
Dave
4 years ago
Reply to  Jerry Davis

Amen.

Richard Taylor
Richard Taylor
4 years ago

James Madison was asked to define the Militia. He said the militia was the whole people of the US. At that time there was also a discussion about requiring all ablebodied men to show up for yearly training It was decided it would be too expensive and disruptive and the idea was abandoned. In its place people were encouraged to arm themselves and provide there own training.

B.Zerker
B.Zerker
4 years ago
Reply to  Richard Taylor

Correct Richard. In fact in 1903 Congress enacted to Dick Act which stated: “Be it enacted that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen, respective of States, Territories, and the District of Columbia and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than 18 and less than 45 years of age, shall be divided into three classes; the organized militia, to be known as The National Guard of the State, Territory or District of Columbia, or by such other designations by the laws of the respective States or… Read more »

TEX
TEX
4 years ago

THE 2A DONT MEAN WE HAVE BE IN A DAMN MILITIA TO EXERCISE OUR 2A RIGHTS ! WHAT IS NEXT ?

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  TEX

Tex, you and I are already in the unorganized militia. And if the situation came to the point that the unorganized militia needed to… well…organize, I know that you’d be one of the first ones there, with the best rifle that you own. See you in formation, brother!

john
john
4 years ago
Reply to  TEX

Every man and woman who has ever served in the military is part of an organized militia. Also anyone serving in civilian paramilitary organization. All others can be considered irregular militia. The second amendment applies to all U.S. citizens. All the time/