If I’m not mistaken, a “militia” was understood to be an ad hoc, non-standing armed group, supplied by the resources of its members. The amendment was added so that if a militia were ever needed (again), it could be formed, because the pool of potential militia members had their own firearms. Laws limiting citizen access to firearms would hobble any new militia.
Given that armies at the time were only recently becoming “standing” (permanent) armies, and the U.S. didn’t really have one, their best option for making war was militias. They were acutely aware that the revolution began that way, and only later developed an actual (organized, separately supplied, long-term) army.
But very quickly, the U.S. developed permanent armed forces and never had to rely on militias again. At that point the 2nd amendment really should have been obsolete.
Militias would be raised by each state government, their loyalty and devotion to the new American republic was assured by the fact that they would be defending their families, their neighbors, and their homes. - Source
They originally envisioned a much different military structure.
That’s mostly true, but you’re missing some key points.
But very quickly, the U.S. developed permanent armed forces and never had to rely on militias again. At that point the 2nd amendment really should have been obsolete.
That part is not accurate. At all.
Go look up 10 USC § 246. This was legislation developed under Congress’s authority conveyed in Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16.
The group you are describing as the militia still exists. Under that law, it is the “Organized Class” of the militia, and consists of every member of the National Guard.
There is another class of militia defined in that piece of legislation: the “Unorganized Class”. Who comprises this “Unorganized Class”? Why would we even bother identifying the members of this class?
Would conscripted veterans of Vietnam, Korea, and WWII support your contention that “very quickly” after the constitution was ratified in 1788, the militia was never needed again?
Assuming you are an American person, I contend that you are a member of the militia referred to in the constitution. You may (or may not) also be a member of one of the two legislatively defined in 10 USC § 246, but whether you are or not, Congress has the power to redefine those two classes. They may change or add classes that would includes you.
If I’m not mistaken, a “militia” was understood to be an ad hoc, non-standing armed group, supplied by the resources of its members. The amendment was added so that if a militia were ever needed (again), it could be formed, because the pool of potential militia members had their own firearms. Laws limiting citizen access to firearms would hobble any new militia.
Given that armies at the time were only recently becoming “standing” (permanent) armies, and the U.S. didn’t really have one, their best option for making war was militias. They were acutely aware that the revolution began that way, and only later developed an actual (organized, separately supplied, long-term) army.
But very quickly, the U.S. developed permanent armed forces and never had to rely on militias again. At that point the 2nd amendment really should have been obsolete.
Milita at the time would refer to state milita.
They originally envisioned a much different military structure.
That’s mostly true, but you’re missing some key points.
That part is not accurate. At all.
Go look up 10 USC § 246. This was legislation developed under Congress’s authority conveyed in Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16.
The group you are describing as the militia still exists. Under that law, it is the “Organized Class” of the militia, and consists of every member of the National Guard.
There is another class of militia defined in that piece of legislation: the “Unorganized Class”. Who comprises this “Unorganized Class”? Why would we even bother identifying the members of this class?
Would conscripted veterans of Vietnam, Korea, and WWII support your contention that “very quickly” after the constitution was ratified in 1788, the militia was never needed again?
Assuming you are an American person, I contend that you are a member of the militia referred to in the constitution. You may (or may not) also be a member of one of the two legislatively defined in 10 USC § 246, but whether you are or not, Congress has the power to redefine those two classes. They may change or add classes that would includes you.