SCOTUS To Hear NY Right-to-Carry Case; Stage Set for Gun Law Upheaval

I hope they make the correct decision

The below gives a good background on the term, including the Pennsylvania Constitution definition.

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/03/04/what-did-bear-arms-mean-in-the-second-amendment/

The Supreme has repeatedly ruled on this matter, and the states have repeatedly defied the opinions of the Supreme Court, and they (the states) have repeatedly engaged in acts of insurrections and violation of the Constitution of the United States in regards to the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendment.

In the United States of America, a citizen who has not been formally having their civil rights removed through a court proceeding may own in their homes, and may carry on their person, and may walk about in public, with arms, including guns, knives, rifles, shotguns, and anything the U.S. military regards as in individually carried and operated firearms, to include, but not limited to pistols, revolvers, shotguns, and other arms. Indeed, the more military in nature, the more protected it is, although close functional versions are also protected.

The Issue at Hand: National security, and the right and obligation of all law-abiding U.S. Citizens, who are not otherwise disqualified, to keep and to bear arms in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, Federal Law, and the various Militia Acts, all of which are Constitutionally superior to any and all state laws.

It is also unlawful to require a license to possess or carry a firearm in the country, so long as a person who keeps or who bears arms (carry them in an operational mode), indeed the Supreme Court has already ruled that requiring a license for which money is paid in fact legally larceny upon the citizen, and a prohibited act.

However, there is an extremely narrow restriction as to where a citizen may carry arms, and these include "sensitive government building" but this does not include ALL government buildings, and "schools" which is defined as K-12, but not including colleges and community colleges (where any U.S. Citizen may carry without permission, permit or license).

So let's break this matter down:

First, this paper is written to clarify a complex and convoluted matter of Constitutional law, to amplify, to prove irrefutably, and to dissect the original intention of the matter of arms in the hands of U.S. Citizens, in the scope of which they existed at the time of the ratification of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, and in the period of time just prior to and in the first few years after such ratification.

Secondly, this paper provides facts and data that is commonly and usually utterly concealed in legal proceedings, as older government-supplied data often directly contradicts other, newer government-supplied data, and this creates an “inconvenience” by which government actors seek to suppress the old data, the old statutes, and the old legal papers in order to further newer, quite unlawful agendas. This paper exposes these statutes, brings to light the “originalists” letters on the matter, and presents a debate that occurred at the time of the ratification in order to demonstrate the original intent and wisdom thereof. Essentially, this paper brings to light our nation's hidden heritage and documents that modern state agencies and public servants have sought to conceal.

Third, this paper provides a cohesive legal argument in regards to national security, the right and responsibility to keep and to bear arm by all U.S. Citizens, and indeed in the history of this country’s legal system, no similar document could be found that even remotely considers or explores the topic in the manner addressed in this paper. This paper provides extra-record data, in the form of special military science data, weapons data, and historical records of military matters to support its position.

Fourth, this paper may be used to appraise the courts of broad-based legal, social, and economic implications of a decision and point out its unintended consequences. Also, it provides a voice to those persons who are not parties but who may be affected by the decision. In certain cases, it is useful for the court to understand how their decision will affect U.S. Citizens on a state or national level.

Fifth, this paper provides vital information that allows a court to base its decision in a particular case on a larger, more comprehensive, and more accurate legal framework and to inform the court of other cases that will influence or be influenced by the outcome and inform the court of variations among the cases that may require careful and thoughtful refinement of the legal analysis.

Sixth, this paper provides a collection of vitally important historical and factual references and exhibits that merit judicial notice as well as to educate and inform the courts of the larger legal landscape to which the issue before it belongs.

Seventh, This paper defines and described the permanent Constitutionally imposed injunction against all State Courts and State Judges, which compels them to obey “the Laws of the Union” to include the Bill of Rights, and all amendments to the Constitution, and the various Militia Laws. The paper also defines and outlines the matter of Supremacy of the aforementioned laws and act in superiority to any and all state laws. Violation of this Constitutional Injunction by any state court or judicial actor automatically makes them criminally and civilly liable under 18 USC § 2383, 42 USC § 1983 ~ 1988, 42 USC § 14141, and 18 USC § 241 ~ 249.

Lastly, this paper concisely describes the intricacies of the specialized field of the militia and military law and national defense to the reader in plain English, and the application of the right and responsibility to possess and maintain arms by all U.S. Citizens.

The author is more familiar with the issue being litigated in many courts than the parties, counsel and likely even the judiciary involved. It is important for the courts to have access to this expertise. There are also cases in which this paper may be in a better position than either of the parties to advocate for a unique point of view, to the benefit of the United States of America itself.


Questions to Be Answered:

• Is the right to keep and to bear arms a protected federal and Constitutional right of all American citizens in all states, and political subdivisions (other than convicted felons, the adjudged insane, and other specifically disqualified individuals).

• Does the Constitution of the United States, by way of the Second Amendment to the Constitution applied to the states by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment provide an unqualified right of all U.S. Citizens to keep and to bear arms, unless that citizen is disqualified by a formal legal process such as a conviction for a felony, adjudged by a court to be insane, dishonorably discharged from the military, recreational narcotics usage, or other disqualifying event defined in federal statute?

• Does the “keeping of arms” (within the construct of the Second Amendment) include the right of an ordinary law-abiding U.S. Citizen (who is not otherwise disqualified) of acquiring, storing, supplying with ammunition or other expendable supplies to render useful, and the disposing of arms apply to modern-day military arms and assault weapons, identical to, or similar to the arms issued to modern-day soldiers of the United States military and those modern weapons of our military adversaries?

• Does the “bearing of arms” (within the construct of the Second Amendment) include the “man-portable” arms of the infantry of the United States to include only the arms transportable and operated by a single infantryman or militia member, or “bear arms” (within the construct of the Second Amendment), or rather does the Second Amendment support the right to heavy artillery, canons, howitzers, tanks, aircraft carriers, nuclear bombs, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction?

• Does the “bearing of arms” (within the construct of the Second Amendment) include the right of any law-abiding U.S. Citizen (not otherwise legally disqualified) to possess and carry arms about their person, without any form of government-issued license or permit, or permission, or infringements.

• Does the “keeping and bearing of arms” (within the construct of the Second Amendment) by a U.S. Citizen who is not otherwise legally disqualified, affect the vital interests of national security.

• Have other nations historically rejected an invasion of the United States, due to the understanding and knowledge that the citizens of the United States were well-armed individuals, capable of repelling such an invasion due to the “keeping and bearing of arms”?

• Does the “keeping and bearing of arms” by U.S. Citizens apply to merely members of the active-duty military forces and standing armies, to the active militia in the form of the National Guard units of the many states, to members of the inactive militia, retired veterans, or to all citizens regardless of military or militia membership, enlistment, or employment?

• Do the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Militia Act of 1795 provide for and fulfill the requirements of a “Well Regulated Militia” as described in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (of 1791)?

• Does the Constitution of the United States, the Second Amendment, Militia Acts of 1792 and the Militia Act of 1795, and successor laws currently require mandatory military or military service of all U.S. Citizens, regardless of color, faith, or gender as not only a civil obligation, but also as a civil right of all citizens (excepting those with religious beliefs to the contrary, who may render service in other ways)?

• Do the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Militia Act of 1795 provide a continuum of law that originates with the Constitutional requirements of a militia, and which “straddles and frames” the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

• Can this same aforementioned continuum of law be considered the intent of those people who signed into law the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights to include the Second Amendment, the Militia Acts of 1792, and the Militia Act of 1795 into a cohesive body of law, which was solidified in 1795?

• Do active duty military or diplomatic personnel has any greater, or lesser right to arms as a U.S. Citizen who is not on active duty military service? If that right is not equal, does that mechanism of inequality withstand Constitutional scrutiny?

• Does the majority of the arms laws on the statute books of the many states arise, historically from keeping arms out of the hands of slaves, and the post-emancipation of those slaves, or out of the hands of females, Negros, Orientals, and other politically or socially disenfranchised groups?

• Does the government of the Peoples Republic of China, the Russian Federation (including its modern-day surrogates), the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and many of the military adversaries and declared enemies of the United States infuse funding and political influence into the improper and undue political influencing of so-called “Assault Weapon Bans” and related activities, bans, licenses, and infringements to the detriment of our national security?

• Does an ordinary U.S. Citizen (who is not otherwise disqualified) have a superior right, equal right, or an inferior right to keep and to bear arms, identical to that of an active or retired police officer, or active or retired federal agent? If that right is not equal, does that mechanism of inequality withstand Constitutional scrutiny?

• Given that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States defines that a militia is necessary for the preservation of the Nation “…being necessary to the security of a free state…”, and thus vital to national security (i.e.: “necessary to the security”), can efforts to ban or withhold military arms from the hands of ordinary law-abiding U.S. citizens (who are not otherwise disqualified) be regarded as overtly usurping and injuring the national security of the United States?

• Given that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States defines that a militia is “…being necessary to the security…” of the nation, do efforts to ban or withhold military arms from the hands of ordinary law-abiding U.S. citizens (to include members of the unorganized militia) withstand scrutiny for “levying war” against the United States by deliberately weakening national security for personal, financial, or political gain?

• Would the original signatories of the Constitution of the United States, the Second Amendment, Militia Acts of 1792 and the Militia Act of 1795 have considered the act of disarming of the general population to be an act of treason, due to the negative effect on national security and the interfering with the armed forces of the United States?

• Does a federal agency, state, political subdivision, any public servant, at any level, commit an act of insurrection and disobedience against the Constitution of the United States by any action which bans, restricts, licenses, or otherwise creates impediments or delays of law-abiding U.S. Citizens from obtaining the same military arms in use by the Active Duty U.S. Military forces, and more specifically the arms in current or historical use by the U.S. infantry forces (or its allies or opposition)?

• Does the federal requirement that all citizens upon reaching the age of 17, become enrolled as a member of the militia extend to the requirement that all members of the militia be armed, and how does this bear Constitutional scrutiny in jurisdictions where a U.S. Citizen under the age of 18 or in others, 21 years of age may not possess arms, which they are required by federal militia law to possess?

• Can the Constitution of the United States be overruled, or made inferior to state, county, or local law or statutes?

• Can the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States be overruled, or made inferior to state, county, or local law or statutes?

• Can a state court, or state judge, or state attorney general, or state district attorney reject or nullify any portion of the Constitution of the United States, or of the Bill of Rights, given that all states have ratified both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and are thereby contractually bound not to engage in such rebellion, insurrection, defiance, or disobedience?

• Can a state court, or a state judge overrule a decision and opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States?

• Can the Militia Laws of the United States be overruled, or made inferior to state, county, or local law or statutes?


Background: The right and obligation to keep and to bear military arms by virtually all U.S. Citizens is regarded as a pillar and foundation of the national security of the United States of America by the original founders of this country. Any action by any government agency or any public official at any level to impose infringements or licensure of this right runs afoul not only of the Bill of Rights but also such infringement is an act of insurrection and disobedience against the Constitution and most likely treason against the United States of America.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States permits all citizens of the United States (except those formally disqualified) to keep and bear arms in their own homes, on their own property, and to carry those arms upon their persons wherever they might go (with very limited exclusion zones), and to cross state lines with these arms with no form of license or permit required by operation of the “Right, Privileges, and Immunities” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

There is no specialized class or “Titles of Nobility” of U.S. Citizen or public officials (to include public safety personnel, and their families), and that a right, immunity, or privilege accorded to a specific group of U.S. Citizens is automatically extended to include all U.S. Citizens. Further, that if a “special class of citizen” is created, that the rights, privileges, and immunities give to that special class of citizen automatically must be applied to all other citizens under the mandate of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby. Anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State: to the contrary not withstanding." - Article VI, Clause 2., Constitution for the United States of America.

a. This aforementioned clause to the Constitution of the United States provides a formal Injunction against any state court or any state judge in regards to the matter of the keeping or bearing of arms. Any court would err gravely, should it attempt to place state statures superior to Constitutional Law.

b. Further, should any court or judge attempt to infringe upon the right of any citizen to keep and bear arms (who is not legally disqualified), that judge or prosecutor would vacate and nullify any form of immunity of their office and would be personally liable for criminal and civil proceedings themselves.

c. Under Section 1983, should a public servant violate an Injunction, their thin veil of judicial immunity is pierced, and they stand naked before justice.

"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved. There can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it; No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd Section 177.

"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Crunch) 13 7, 180.

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be convened into a crime." Miller v. U.S., 230 F 486 at 489.

"The individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." – Wilson v. United States (1911), 221 U.S. 361 at 42

''A State [or the United States] may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution." Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 at 113 (1943).

In the Heller at 2810, “Congress enacted the Freedmen's Bureau Act on July 16, 1866. Section 14 stated:

"[T]he right ... to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the Constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens ... without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery. ..." 14 Stat. 176-177.

The understanding that the Second Amendment gave freed blacks the right to keep and bear arms was reflected in the congressional discussion of the bill, with even an opponent of it saying that the founding generation "were for every man bearing his arms about him and keeping them in his house, his castle, for his own defense." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 362, 371 (1866) (Sen. Davis).

Similar discussion attended the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, Representative Butler said of the Act: "Section eight is intended to enforce the well-known Constitutional provision guaranteeing the right of the citizen to `keep and bear arms,' and provides that whoever shall take away, by force or violence, or by threats and intimidation, the arms and weapons which any person may have for his defense, shall be deemed guilty of larceny of the same." H.R.Rep. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3d Sess., pp. 7-8 (1871). With respect to the proposed Amendment, Senator Pomeroy described as one of the three "indispensable" "safeguards of liberty ... under the Constitution" a man's "right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1182 (1866). Representative Nye thought the Fourteenth Amendment unnecessary because "[a]s citizens of the United States [blacks] have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense." Id., at 1073 (1866).”

"There can be no limitation on the power of the people of the United States; ..." - Hauentstein v. Lynharm, 100 US 483 (1879).

"There is no such thing as power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress; can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it; All else is withheld." Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421.

"A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law." Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385.

"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it” - United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941): accord, United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, (1947). ''Particularly is this true where the statute imposes burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage. United States., v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 315 (1840).” Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979).

"All codes, rule and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process ... " Rodriguez v. Ray Donovan (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F 2d, 1344, 1348 (1985).

"If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery….” - United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch I 15, 136.

"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.” U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179 at 187.

“Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading ... We cannot condone this shocking conduct... lf that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F2d 297, 299-300.

"Waivers of Constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences." Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 749, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1469 (1970); See also Fuentes v. Shcvin, 401 U.S. 67 (1972); Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 6 (1966), Empsak v. U.S., 190 (1955); and, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 58 (1938).

"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar." United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95.

"It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordnance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official - as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official - is an unconstitutional; censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms." Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322 . And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.'' Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (Alabama), 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

Further, as there is no federal license required to keep and bear arms, and the right to arms is a federally protected act (by virtue of the Constitution of the United States), any state would err in confecting any licensing scheme in regards to arms as an act of licensure is by its very nature an infringement upon a right.

“10 USC § 311 - 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 members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia”


The modern organized United States Militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split the 1792 “Uniform Militia” forces, and consists of state militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia. This split created three distinct branches of the militia.

The National Guard (of the states) however, is not to be confused with the National Guard or Reserves of the United States, which are federally recognized reserve military forces, although the two are linked.

The National Guard of the individual states actually takes a dual oath first to the Constitution of the United States and to the Federal government, and then afterward to the military command chain of the individual state. In this way the National Guard of any state may be “Federalized” under Title 10, should the governor, legislature, or judiciary disobey Federal law, and that disobedience requires the application of Federalized troops.

The reserve militia or “unorganized militia,” also created by the Militia Act of 1903, which presently consist of every able-bodied man (and now women) of at least 17, and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft, or “militia mustering”).

Former members of the active-duty regular armed forces (“Standing Armies”, but not the National Guard) with an Honorable Discharge up to age 65 are also automatically considered part of the "unorganized militia" due to their prior experience and expertise per 32 USC § 313 of the US Code.

“32 USC § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.”

It should be noted that when this country was founded, that only white male were allowed to be citizens, which is why only white males were allowed at that time the honor and privilege of serving in the militia. Only white males were allowed to vote, or to have the immunities, privileges, and rights of citizenship. Females, people of any color, and Indians were not allowed to have the right to vote, or for that matter any other civil rights until later in time.

By case law and Supreme Court decisions otherwise listed herein, it is found that the definition of “Militia” has since been expanded to in regards to the “unorganized militia” to include both male and female genders, or all races, and through various Supreme Court decisions, it is stated to include all citizens of the United States are members of the Constitutional Militia, and not merely of a specified age range.

Under both federal and state statute the “unorganized militia” also known as the “reserve militia” and in other places of the law called merely the “militia” (which is different by statute than the “Organized Militia,” “Volunteer Militia” or “National Guard” as the name evolved over time) was required to acquire, keep, store and maintain their own arms and accouterments dating back to the Militia Acts of 1792, through the Militia Act of 1903, and through to the present day.

Various state statutes protect these arms and other accouterments suited for unorganized militia service to be exempt from execution as it defines a personal property interest in these arms, and in fact, by so doing acknowledges and then re-acknowledges that arms may be and must be lawfully kept in the home, absent any form of licensing whatsoever. Further, these state statute clearly defines a class of military arms that are to be kept within the home and defines a personal property interest in these military arms.

When arms are passed on a loan basis from the Federal government to the state National Guard armories the Federal government retains ownership thereof and allows the many states to possess federal arms (on loan). If the state on the other hand purchases arms, then these are the possessions of the state and not of the Federal government. Either state-purchased arms or Federal government arms may then be issued to members of the organized militia/National Guard and issued to the individual National Guardsman. However, the National Guardsman/organized militia members have no actual property right over the arms as these belong to the state, as they are loaned to the state by the federal government by operation of the Militia Act of 1903.

Nonetheless, the arms held by the “unorganized militia, “reserve militia,” or “militia” are the actual personal possessions of the individual militia members, and neither the state nor the federal government has any possession interest or ownership in the arms of this group of militia members.

By the function of the Second Amendment, applied to the States by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment that I am entitled to keep and bear arms of my choosing for personal defense, or hunting, or target practice exclusive of militia service. In addition, that the Supreme Court in Heller and in McDonald have forcefully affirmed this right, privilege, and immunity.

By the function of the Second Amendment applied to the States by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment that I am entitled and actually required to keep and bear suitable arms of my choosing for service in the unorganized militia, and to do this without infringement or deprivation. In addition, that the Supreme Court in Heller and in McDonald have forcefully affirmed this right, privilege, and immunity.

I, (and Congress, and the Supreme Court) recognize that the militia members (consisting of all citizens) are required to keep and to supply their own arms and to keep and supply their own ammunition per Nordyke v. King, 364 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2004); the first Militia Act enacted in 1792 by the Second Congress; in The Supreme Court in Miller 307 U.S. at 179; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886); Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41, 46 (1965) and other opinions, rulings, and statutes.

The Militia is historically divided into “levels” or “classes” based on youth vs. age, physical condition, and maturity and that the dividing lines are generally at the ages of 15 or 16, then 21, then at 30 (in some states 28), then at 45, and then 60, and finally those over the age of 60 (or 64 in some cases).

Further, that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the opinion that both genders of all races are eligible for Militia service, and not merely white males.

Historically the Militia was and is further divided between those members who have previously served in the United States Active Duty military (and having been given an honorable discharge), and college or university graduates. It is from these university graduates and honorably discharged veterans that the modern Militia draws its officers.

The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of: Martin v. Mott, 25 US 19 - Supreme Court 1827.

“For the more clear and exact consideration of the subject, it may be necessary to refer to the Constitution of the United States, and some of the provisions of the act of 1795. The Constitution declares that Congress shall have power "to provide for calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions:" and also "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." In pursuance of this authority, the act of 1795 has provided, "that whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State or States most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his order for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper." And like provisions are made for the other cases stated in the Constitution. It has not been denied here, that the act of 1795 is within the Constitutional authority of Congress, or that Congress may not lawfully provide for cases of imminent danger of invasion, as well as for cases where an invasion has actually taken place. In our opinion there is no ground for a doubt on this point, even if it had been relied on, for the power to provide for repelling invasions includes the power to provide against the attempt and danger of invasion, as the necessary and proper means to effectuate the object. One of the best means to repel invasion is to provide the requisite force for action before the invader himself has reached the soil.”

“The power thus confided by Congress to the President, is, doubtless, of a very high and delicate nature. A free people are naturally jealous of the exercise of military power; and the power to call the militia into actual service is certainly felt to be one of no ordinary magnitude. But it is not a power which can be executed without a correspondent responsibility. It is, in its terms, a limited power, confined to cases of actual invasion, or of imminent danger of invasion.”

“If we look at the language of the act of 1795, every conclusion drawn from the nature of the power itself, is strongly fortified. The words are, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion, it shall be lawful for the President, to call forth such number of the militia, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion." The power itself is confided to the Executive of the Union, to him who is, by the Constitution, "the commander in chief of the militia, when called into the actual service of the United States," whose duty it is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and whose responsibility for an honest discharge of his official obligations is secured by the highest sanctions.” pp 28-31

James Madison's initial proposal for a Bill of Rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codifies an existing right and did not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller.

"This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we (the United States Supreme Court) said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ..”. Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. See E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today 51 (1957); W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 122 (1825) (hereinafter Rawle)."


Delaware dates its militia from the early Swedish settlers of 1655 attempting to defend themselves from the Dutch.

In September 1755, George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia militia, upon a frustrating and futile attempt to call up the militia to respond to a frontier Indian attack:
"...he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troops, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support. And what added to his mortification was, that the laws gave him no power to correct these evils, either by enforcing discipline, or compelling the indolent and refractory to their duty" ... "The militia system was suited for only to times of peace. It provided for calling out men to repel invasion; but the powers granted for effecting it were so limited, as to be almost inoperative." - Sparks, Jared: "The Life of George Washington", page 70. F. Andrews, 1853


On July 9, 1778, the initial plan for a formally defined Militia was defined in the “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between The States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.” This plan suffered from a significant and crippling flaw in Article VI as it required the individual states to arm and equip the Militia, which no state was actually able to do at the time due to severe financial restrictions and weakness. With the Militia Acts of 1792, this responsibility was transferred to the individual citizens (“the people”) who were to maintain their own arms and equipment.

The aforementioned flaw in Article VI of the Articles of Confederation, when contrasted to the Militia Acts of 1792 moves the responsibility of obtaining and keeping arms from the federal government and states to the individual citizen, so that not only does a U.S. Citizen have the right to keep and to bear arms, but by statute is also obligated to keep and to bear arms. This movement by Congress of the responsibility to the citizen to supply their own supply arms, speaks to the founders' intentions, and the intentions of the earliest Congress that the entire “the people” be well-armed, and to dramatically exceed the power of the entire U.S. military or any adversary of the United States.

The citizens of the United States of America at the signing and ratification of the Articles of Confederation, were already well-armed, as under English Law they each had a specific right and obligation to arms, and this right to arms predates the Articles of Confederation the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the various Militia Acts, and all laws that proceed them.

Indeed, the Articles of Confederation did not actually create the Militia, instead, it defined its responsibilities. The Militia actually pre-dates the Articles of Confederation, which merely acknowledges that it was pre-existing.

On January 21, 1790, the 1st President of the United States, George Washington, provided a report to the 1st Congress, 2nd Session a report on the “Organization of the Militia” in which the initial plan for raising a militia was presented. This report is important in this matter as it provides the parameters described in the Heller Court at 2821 that “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them…” As this report to Congress by President Washington when combined with the initial proposal of the Bill of Rights by James Madison as it provided the Heller standard of “…scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them…”

The issue of the Militia of all citizens was raised prior to the Second Amendment being ratified, and by reviewing the “…the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them…” between July 1776 and January 1790 the rationale and “understanding” present just prior to the Second Amendment being debated, and then ratified provides the “…scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them…”

Further, the vision of Congress of the “well-regulated militia, was manifest in law made immediately following the signing of the Bill of Rights, with the Militia Acts of 1792, and with the refinements thereto that took place up to the year 1800. “The scope” in which the Second Amendment was passed, and the meanings and intentions of the founders are documented in the laws, which they passed to refine and define the Second Amendment.

Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is:

"a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?" - Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 97 (2d ed. 1863)


Noah Webster similarly argued:

“Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. - Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787), Reprinted in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, Published During Its Discussion by the People, 1787-1788, at 56 (Paul L. Ford, ed. 1971) (1888)


George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts”

"to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein - Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 425 (3d Ed. 1937)


The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.

During the Constitution Convention of May 14, 1787, there was great contention and turmoil between the two groups. One group could be collectively called the “Federalists” and the opposing group the “Anti-Federalists.” To obtain insight as to why the Constitution Convention was required, it bears mentioning that in 1786 the new nation had already begun to fracture and the union between the states started to erode. The Constitutional Convention was held in secret in order to ensure candor, to revise, and to update the original Articles of Confederation. The revision to this original document became the Constitution of the United States. While the Federalists essentially wrote and then signed the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists wrote the Bill of Rights that amended the Constitution in order to confine and restrict the power of both the Federal government and the States, and to promote personal rights. Thus, one side wrote the Constitution (the Federalist) and the opposing side put forward Amendments that both sides found agreeable. Thus, through the Constitution and the Amendments, thereof a balance was found.

The need for a Constitutional Convention of May 1787 was outlined and called for by the “Proceedings of the Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government, Annapolis in the State of Maryland. September 14, 1786 (Annapolis Convention).

Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”- Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

While both Monroe and Adams supported the ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."

By January of 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:

“Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.”


To ensure utter clarity in this paper, we can consider the recorded opinions of many of the philosophies that were present at the time, and we can peer into the original meaning and the original intent of the original authors.

a. “To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” — George Mason, 1788

b. “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” — Richard Henry Lee, 1788 (Delegate from Virginia, signer of the Continental Association, signer of the Declaration of Independence, signer of the Articles of Confederation.

c. “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe (delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress), Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

d. “The power of the sword, say the minority... is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

e. “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Thomas Jefferson "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

f. “The Constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves,…or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed…” — Thomas Jefferson, 1824

g. “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322

h. “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” — Samuel Adams, 1850

i. “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.” – John Adams

j. "What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear--and long-lost--proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms." Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).

k. "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." - United States Senate, Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).

l. "The Second Amendment to the federal Constitution, as well as the Constitutions of many of the states, guaranty to the people the right to bear arms. This is a natural right, not created or granted by the Constitutions." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.

m. "The "arms" here meant are those of a soldier ... The citizen has at all times the right to keep arms of modern warfare, if without danger to others, and for purposes of training and efficiency in their use, but not such weapons as are only intended to be the instruments of private feuds or vengeance." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.

n. A Bill of Rights is in the nature of a classified list of the rights and privileges of individuals, whether personal, civil, or political, which the Constitution is designed to protect against governmental oppression, containing also the formal assurance or guaranty of these rights. It is a charter of liberties for the individual and a limitation upon the power of the state. Such declarations are found in all the state Constitutions. And the lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the objections to the federal Constitution most strongly urged when it was before the people for their ratification. Very soon after the adoption of the Constitution, this defect was remedied by the adoption of a series of amendments, of which the first eight may be said to constitute the federal Bill of Rights. Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.

o. "If the legislature attempts to violate or defy the Constitution, it will be held in check by the judicial department." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.

p. "A written Constitution, at least in a free country, is a supreme and paramount law, which all must obey, and to which all statutes, all institutions, and all governmental activities must bend, and which cannot be abrogated except by the people who created it." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.

q. "...the term "Constitutional government" is applied only to those whose fundamental rules or maxims not only locate the sovereign power in individuals or bodies designated or chosen in some prescribed manner, but also define the limits of its exercise, so as to protect individual rights, and shield them against the assumption of arbitrary power." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.

r. "Some scholars mistakenly believe that the function of the preamble [to the Second Amendment] is to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms to members of the militia." Leonard W. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights, Paperback 1999 edition, Chapter 6, Page 133.

s. "Believing that the [second] amendment does not authorize an individual's right to keep and bear arms is wrong. The right to bear arms is an individual right. The military connotation of bearing arms does not necessarily determine the meaning of a right to bear arms. If all it meant was the right to be a soldier or serve in the military, whether in the militia or the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached Constitutional status in the Bill of Rights." Leonard W. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights, Paperback 1999 edition, Chapter 6, Pages 134-135.

t. "The very language of the amendment is evidence that the right is a personal one, for it is not subordinated to the Militia Clause. Rather the right is an independent one, altogether separate from the maintenance of a militia. Militias were possible only because the people were armed and possessed the right to be armed. The right does not depend on whether militias exist." Leonard W. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights, Paperback 1999 edition, Chapter 6, Pages 135.

u. “The Constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; ... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;” - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824


Further, James Madison took copious notes during the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (the “Constitutional Convention”), and these notes provide deep insight and understanding that goes deeper into the original intent of the signatories of the Constitution and they remain the most complete historical record of the proceedings.

When these Notes of James Madison are combined with the notes taken by the other delegates, and letters they sent back and forth to family and loved ones, personal diaries, and other documents an even more solid picture is formed as to the original intent and purpose of all elements of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

As the Amended Constitution thus became the supreme law over all other laws of this country, and even more superior to the laws of the individual states. It is vitally important to obtain a grasp on the actual debates and discussion held in 1787 to gain any meaningful grasp on the original intent of the founders, which we are bound to explore if we are to understand the wisdom of our forefathers in a meaningful way.

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson


“Mr. MASON introduced the subject of regulating the militia. He thought such a power necessary to be given to the Genl. Government. He hoped there would be no standing army in time of peace, unless it might be for a few garrisons. The Militia ought therefore to be the more effectually prepared for the public defence. Thirteen States will never concur in any one system, if the displining of the Militia be left in their hands. If they will not give up the power over the whole, they probably will over a part as a select militia. He moved as an addition to the propositions just referred to the Committee of detail, & to be referred in like manner, "a power to regulate the militia."” – James Madison, Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention [Constitutional Convention], Tuesday August 18, 1787


“Mr. GERRY took notice that there was no check here agst. standing armies in time of peace. The existing Congs. is so constructed that it cannot of itself maintain an army. This wd. not be the case under the new system. The people were jealous on this head, and great opposition to the plan would spring from such an omission. He suspected that preparations of force were now making agst. it. [he seemed to allude to the activity of the Govr. of N. York at this crisis in disciplining the militia of that State.] He thought an army dangerous in time of peace & could never consent to a power to keep up an indefinite number. He proposed that there shall [FN13] not be kept up in time of peace more than thousand troops. His idea was that the blank should be filled with two or three thousand.

Instead of "to build and equip fleets"-"to provide & maintain a navy" [FN14] agreed to nem. con. as a more convenient definition of the power.

[FN15] "To make rules for the Government and regulation of the land & naval forces," [FN14] added from the existing Articles of Confederation.

Mr. L. MARTIN and Mr. GERRY now regularly moved "provided that in time of peace the army shall not consist of more than thousand men."

Genl. PINKNEY asked whether no troops were ever to be raised until an attack should be made on us?

Mr. GERRY. if there be no restriction, a few States may establish a military Govt.” – James Madison, Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention [Constitutional Convention] , August 18, 1787


“Mr. MASON moved as an additional power "to make laws for the regulation and discipline of the militia of the several States reserving to the States the appointment of the officers." He considered uniformity as necessary in the regulation of the Militia throughout the Union.

Genl. PINKNEY mentioned a case during the war in which a dissimilarity in the militia of different States had produced the most serious mischiefs. Uniformity was essential. The States would never keep up a proper discipline of their militia.

Mr. ELSEWORTH was for going as far in submitting the militia to the Genl. Government as might be necessary, but thought the motion of Mr. Mason went too far. He moved that the militia should have the same arms & exercise and be under rules established by the Genl. Govt. when in actual service of the U. States and when States neglect to provide regulations for militia, it shd. be regulated & established by the Legislature of [FN17] U. S. The whole authority over the Militia ought by no means to be taken away from the States whose consequence would pine away to nothing after such a sacrifice of power. He thought the Genl. Authority could not sufficiently pervade the Union for such a purpose, nor could it accomodate itself to the local genius of the people. It must be vain to ask the States to give the Militia out of their hands.

Mr. SHERMAN 2ds. the motion.

Mr. DICKENSON. We are come now to a most important matter, that of the sword. His opinion was that the States never would nor ought to give up all authority over the Militia. He proposed to restrain the general power to one fourth part at a time, which by rotation would discipline the whole Militia.

Mr. BUTLER urged the necessity of submitting the whole Militia to the general Authority, which had the care of the general defence.

Mr. MASON. had suggested the idea of a select militia. He was led to think that would be in fact as much as the Genl. Govt. could advantageously be charged with. He was afraid of creating insuperable objections to the plan. He withdrew his original motion, and moved a power "to make laws for regulating and disciplining the militia, not exceeding one tenth part in any one year, and reserving the appointment of officers to the States."

Genl. PINKNEY, renewed Mr. Mason's original motion. For a part to be under the Genl. and [FN18] part under the State Govts. wd. be an incurable evil. he saw no room for such distrust of the Genl. Govt.

Mr. LANGDON 2ds. Genl. Pinkney's renewal. He saw no more reason to be afraid of the Genl. Govt. than of the State Govts. He was more of the confusion of the different authorities on this subject, than of either.

Mr. MADISON thought the regulation of the Militia naturally appertaining to the authority charged with the public defence. It did not seem in its nature to be divisible between two distinct authorities. If the States would trust the Genl. Govt. with a power over the public treasure, they would from the same consideration of necessity grant it the direction of the public force. Those who had a full view of the public situation wd. from a sense of the danger, guard agst. it: the States would not be separately impressed with the general situation, nor have the due confidence in the concurrent exertions of each other.

Mr. ELSEWORTH. considered the idea of a select militia as impracticable; & if it were not it would be followed by a ruinous declension of the great body of the Militia. The States will [FN19] never submit to the same militia laws. Three or four shilling's as a penalty will enforce obedience better in New England, than forty lashes in some other places.

Mr. PINKNEY thought the power such an one as could not be abused, and that the States would see the necessity of surrendering it. He had however but a scanty faith in Militia. There must be also a real military force. This alone can effectually answer the purpose. The United States had been making an experiment without it, and we see the consequence in their rapid approaches towards anarchy. [FN7]

Mr. SHERMAN, took notice that the States might want their Militia for defence agst. invasions and insurrections, and for enforcing obedience to their laws. They will not give up this point. In giving up that of taxation, they retain a concurrent power of raising money for their own use.

Mr. GERRY thought this the last point remaining to be surrendered. If it be agreed to by the Convention, the plan will have as black a mark as was set on Cain. He had no such confidence in the Genl. Govt. as some gentlemen professed, and believed it would be found that the States have not.

Col. MASON. thought there was great weight in the remarks of Mr. Sherman, and moved an exception to his motion "of such part of the Militia as might be required by the States for their own use."

Mr. READ doubted the propriety of leaving the appointment of the Militia officers in [FN20] the States. In some States they are elected by the legislatures; in others by the people themselves. He thought at least an appointment by the State Executives ought to be insisted on.” – James Madison, Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention [Constitutional Convention], August 18, 1787

“Mr. MADISON. The primary object is to secure an effectual discipline of the Militia. This will no more be done if left to the States separately than the requisitions have been hitherto paid by them. The States neglect their Militia now and the more they are consolidated into one nation, the less each will rely on its own interior provisions for its safety & the less prepare its Militia for that purpose; in like manner as the militia of a State would have been still more neglected than it has been if each County had been independently charged with the care of its Militia. The Discipline of the Militia is evidently a National concern, and ought to be provided for in the National Constitution.

Mr. L. MARTIN was confident that the States would never give up the power over the Militia; and that, if they were to do so the militia would be less attended to by the Genl. than by the State Governments.

Mr. RANDOLPH asked what danger there could be that the Militia could be brought into the field and made to commit suicide on themselves. This is a power that can not from its nature be abused, unless indeed the whole mass should be corrupted. He was for trammelling the Genl. Govt. wherever there was danger, but here there could be none. He urged this as an essential point; observing that the Militia were every where neglected by the State Legislatures, the members of which courted popularity too much to enforce a proper discipline. Leaving the appointment of officers to the States protects the people agst. every apprehension that could produce murmur.” – James Madison, Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention [Constitutional Convention], August 23, 1787


“XI. No State to have any forces land or Naval; and the Militia of all the States to be under the sole and exclusive direction of the United States, the officers of which to be appointed and commissioned by them.” - Alexander Hamilton, “On motion of Mr. DICKINSON to postpone the 1st. Resolution in Mr. Patterson's plan, in order to take up the following viz-"that the Articles of Confederation ought to be revised and amended, so as to render the Government of the U.S. adequate to the exigencies, the preservation and the prosperity of the Union" - June 18, 1787.


The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. Then, within six months of the Bill of Rights being adopted, Congress passed two acts to refine and direct control the militia, and to place direction upon individual citizens who were now legally required to keep arms at all times, and to be able to bear arms (thus making it the proscribed well-regulated militia”). The Second Amendment did not actually create a right to arms, rather it memorialized a right that was in existence well prior to the creation of and Amending of the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison, using the original proposed language of the Second Amendment.

However, by the incorporating of the right to arms into the founding documents of this country the mechanism was engaged to require all citizens to unquestionably have arms in their home, and this universal requirement of arms would lay the initial basis for the Militia. In Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States affirms that this core right to possess arms in the home is an unqualified right, upon which the state is utterly prohibited to interfere.

Once the right to keep and to bear arms was memorialized (as the Second Amendment), it permitted all citizens a right to arms for their own personal use, facilitating a natural right to self-defense, and other lawful uses, it then also enabled the U.S. Citizens to start forming the next generation of Militia that the 1st Congress and the 1st President had spoken about strongly in his report to the 1st Congress.

The Militia Acts of 1792 were a pair of statutes enacted by the Second United States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion, lawlessness, or insurrection. This authority was directly and successfully used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and it has also been used to remedy judicial corruption in the past.

What is particularly poignant in regards to the Militia Acts of 1792, is that the Bill of Rights was introduced by James Madison to the 1st Congress in 1789, and then came into effect by ratification on December 15, 1791. But, it was on March 2, 1792, that Massachusetts became the 12th state to ratify the Bill of Rights, which included provisions for the public to be allowed to keep, and to bear or carry arms; to practice the religion or faith of their choosing, if any; and should they be so industrious to be allowed to obtain a printing press, and to operate either for their own edification or to the edification of others.

Thus, the time between the ratification of the Second Amendment and the passing of the Militia Acts of 1792 was a matter of mere months. A period of time that was so short, that essentially the same “Framers of the Constitution” also framed the Second Amendment, and the Militia Acts of 1792 and buy such actions defined the scope of the meaning of the Second Amendment, made manifest by the Militia laws of 1792.

The intentions of Congress in first passing the Second Amendment and then almost immediately passing the Militia Acts of 1792 are quite clear, wherein they required protection of the ancient right to arms for self-defense, and defense of the country, but also expanded and directed these rights and requirements to include very specific MANDATORY minimal requirement of arms to be possessed of all citizens. Thus, both the Second Amendment and the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Militia Act of 1795 are inexplicably interwoven and intertwined.

Congress first laid down the right to arms as a personal and individual right of citizenship. Then, once this personal right to arms was established, certain arms were then required to be possessed and maintained, and upon these arms, the militia was formed. However, there could be no militia unless there was first individual possession of arms and before that could take place Constitutional protection on the keeping and bearing of arms. This creates “a well-considered continuum” by this countries founders, in that the Constitution defined the new militia (out of the old militia, they was already operational by that time), then by way of the Second Amendment that they “the people” arm themselves, and then the Militia Acts of 1792 regulated them and what was needed for them to arm themselves with (arms of the infantry).

Additionally in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) on page 2821, the Supreme Court provides the observation:

“A Constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U.S. 43, 97 S.Ct. 2205, 53 L.Ed.2d 96 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people...”


If we take the Militia Act of 1792 (passed mere “Congressional” months after the Second Amendment was ratified) we can discover that "enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them" which the Heller Court speaks of. In fact, we can use the exact wording of the Militia Act of 1792 and the aforementioned opinions of the Supreme Court and I assert that the right to “all arms of the infantry” exists at this very moment (in the understanding of the 1792 time frame).

The Militia Act of 1792 (May 1792) is known by the full title of “An act more effectually to provide for the National Defense, by Establishing a Uniform Militia Throughout the United States [May 8, 1792]” – Section 1

“…it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer, of a company to enroll every such citizen [in the militia]…”

“…That every Citizen so enrolled shall, from and after he shall be duly notified of his enrollment be constantly provided with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot pouch and powder horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutered and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack…”

[Note: The “musket or firelock” described in this passage is the .75 caliber flintlock muskets, which were the standard long guns of the British Empire's infantry or land forces from 1722 until 1838. The Long Land Pattern (10.4 pounds, 46 inches without bayonet, 62.5 inches with bayonet, was used by both sides in the Revolutionary War. Thus per the Heller Court “enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them"]

“…That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed, with a sword or hanger, and espontoon…” [in addition to the aforementioned arms of the foot solider]

[Note: an “espontoon” is a type of 6 to 7-foot lance and battle-ax, used both as an edged weapon and a signaling device to help direct infantry troops].

“…from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound….”

[Note: This describes a projectile weighing roughly 388.9 grains, or over twice the weight of the .30-06 projectiles of 150 grains used in World War I, and the 173-grain version used after the war. Indeed the projectile described in this passage is that of a .75 caliber bullet (in the form of a lead ball), which was dramatically larger than the modern .50 BMG projectile (this is slightly heavier but much longer). Nonetheless, this passage describes long-range firearms, that exceed the .30-06 rounds in antiquity by at least two-fold, and is larger than the .50 BMG round of common modern arms.]

[By 1800 the Militia Laws required a minimum of 4 pounds of raw lead be carried by each militia member, with at least 40 rounds pre-packaged into ready to use cartridges, plus at least one pound of powder, and bullet forms and ladle to convert the raw lead into bullets while in the field. The modern equivalent to this would be 509 rounds of M-16/AR-15 ammunition or 200 rounds of pistol ammunition. Should a modern soldier possess both a pistol and a rifle, this same “four pounds of lead” could be divided into 210 rounds of M-16/AR-15 ammunition, plus 45 rounds of pistol ammunition, plus 100 shotgun cartridges. Indeed, this just so happens to be roughly the amount of lead projectiles that the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Marines place into the hands of their soldiers as their basic and initial load… four pounds of lead, just as in colonial times.]

[Further, when the statute refers to the “pouch” it is a place for EXTRA pistol cartridges beyond these cartridge(s) loaded into the pistols, as well as extra cartridges for the musket or rifle, beyond that already loaded into the musket or rifle. In the case of a musket cartridge, the contents of each is one rifle “ball” bullet, and (at least) 3 buckshot so that each musket cartridge ejected four or more projectiles. As the quality of the steel increased in the ensuing years, the musket chamber pressures could be safely increased and the musket cartridges evolved into a ball of lead, preceded by 9 buckshot, so that with each pull of the trigger ten projectiles were ejected from the barrel.]

[The musket would evolve into the modern-day combat shotgun, which ejects (9) nine or more projectiles with each pull of the trigger. For example, a Mossberg military 590 shotgun with a normal military barrel holds 9 rounds of ammunition, and ejects (9) nine rounds of buckshot, and is capable of being fired 9 times before reloading, so that 81 projectiles or bullet are ejected between reloading. This is called the (8+1) x9 system, but a soldier is also taught to refresh the ammunition fired to keep the shotgun constantly “topped off” to its full capacity. Additionally, in modern-day military service, the shotgun is regarded as suited for close proximity usage, and the carbines and rifles for long-distance usage. Further, the modern soldier carried 9 shotgun cartridges loaded into the shotgun, and then 20-30 rounds in a pouch for rapid reloading… in addition to the required pistol and rifle ammunition.]

By operation of the Militia Act of 1792, the U.S. Government, and the states (to include the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) recognized that citizens have the responsibility to the federal government and the explicit right to keep and bear pistols, shotguns, muskets, and both large bore (.75 caliber), and long-range firearms suited for use on the field of battle or rather that are commonly called “assault rifles.”

As the Supreme Court recognized in McDonald, that while the technologies and weapons of warfare have changed over the centuries, the Constitution and the Amendments thereof remain the same by which modern arms replace antique arms.

Also, Congressional papers, debates in Congress, and reports in relation to the Militia that date from between 1789 and 1794 which span the point in the history of the signing of the Second Amendment and just beyond the Militia Acts of 1792 (to 1795) so that the actual words and meaning of the original writers, and the reports, intent, understanding and laws that existed at the time of the Second Amendment can be clearly understood, and must be carried forward into modern times.

The timeline of events and legislative matters between 1789 and 1792, and more particularly the events between December 1791 and May 1792 provide solid proof as to the original intentions of Congress; that of first codifying law that formally empowered and required essentially all U.S. citizens to possess arms, and then to take these armed citizens and create from them a nationwide militia of armed citizens, armed with their own personal arms (separate from the standing army). Without the law recognizing the right and obligation of all citizens to arms, the Militia Acts of 1792 would have been moot as Congress lacked the funds at that time to properly arm the entire public.

But, it is also important to observe that the Militia actually existed PRIOR to the drafting of the Constitution of the United States or the Articles of Confederation, or the Bill of Rights and that the mention of the “Militia” reference to a body that existed at that time, but who lacked Constitutional protection on their arms, until the ratification of the Second Amendment. Once the Bill of Rights was ratified, then Congress could move to take the pre-existing Militia (that predated the Constitution, and then re-define or re-state to the record by statute (Militia Acts of 1792) what the responsibilities would be for the militia under the new Constitution. The older Militia of the pre-Revolutionary War, era merely became the new Militia in 1792.

The intentions of the signatories of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, were made manifest in the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795.

It is notable that U.S. Citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights already were already well-armed, and this right to arms of the citizens was a basic tenant of English law which defined a core right of both self-defense, and defense of the country.

The First Militia Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the President to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act.” This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion. The president's authority in both cases was to expire after two years. These militias of the several states could not be called out if they were not first lawfully armed with their own arms. This Militia Act was repealed and replaced with the Militia Act of 1795 that expanded upon the First Militia Act.

The Second Militia Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet, and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, all white males (who legally were the only people recognized to be eligible for U.S. Citizenship at the time) were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall. This Second Militia Act (May 8, 1792) has not yet been repealed.

The fact that this Second Militia Act was never actually repealed, and that since the passing of this Act that Congress and the Supreme Court has designated that Negroes, Indians, and Non-Whites must be accorded the same rights as whites by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and that by law females now hold the same rights and responsibilities as males. Thus, all colors, races, creeds, and genders are defined as U.S. Citizens and thus all are eligible for militia service… and are each required by law to keep arms of their own.

Again, through the operation of the Second Amendment, the entire population of citizens (with certain citizens disqualified such as felons and the insane) was thus proactively protected from any federal or state agency from restricting personal arms possession or keeping, or the bearing of arms, and as the population was lawfully armed (by operation of the Second Amendment), they could instantly be called up for militia service (using their own arms).

The authority to call forth the militia was first invoked by George Washington to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania in 1794, just before the law granting that authority expired. Congress quickly passed the Militia Act of 1795, which made the provisions of the 1792 Militia Act permanent.

The Center of Military Studies, of the United States Army, publishes a series of books of American Military History, and in Volume One “The United States Army and the Forging of a Nation, 1775 – 1917” the U.S. Army itself provided an insightful narrative into the core origins of the militia and the intertwining of the Second Amendment around it:

“The Constitution gave Congress the exclusive power to declare war, raise armies, and provide for a navy. It also empowered Congress to call forth the militia “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” But authority over the militia was a shared power. Congress could provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia and governing “such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,” but the Constitution specifically reserved to the states the authority to appoint militia officers and to train the militia “according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

“The militia issue was also central to the shaping of the Second Amendment to the Constitution: the right to keep and bear arms. If the founding fathers recognized the centrality of freedom of speech, the press, and assembly, they also made clear those freedoms would only remain secure if the people could keep and bear arms as an ultimate check on the power of the government. The Second Amendment has been much politicized since its adoption as part of the Bill of Rights, but there is no question that the architects of our government believed that the people in arms—the militia—were the final guarantors of our freedom. Any subsequent reinterpretations of that amendment must start with the fact that our leaders, fresh from their experiences in the Revolutionary War, relied on the militia as the centerpiece of our national military establishment. The concept of the militia and the right to bear arms are inextricably joined.” – pages 112-113


These Militia Acts of 1792, were amended by the Militia Act of 1862 (12 Stat. 597, enacted July 17, 1862), which allowed African-Americans to serve in the militias of the United States. They were then supplemented by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States, but which maintained the balance between the Federal forces and State forces. It is notable, that Massachusetts law, and the opinions of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, prohibited any negro to serve in the Militia.

On April 23, 1808, a Militia Act of 1808, was passed entitled “An Act Making Provision for Arming and Equipping the Whole Body of the Militia of the United States” which established factories, sites, and arsenals to manufacture the individually carried arms needed by the infantry, and that a plan was initiated to be able to arm all citizens by providing these arms to the states, and thence to the militias. While this was an ambitious plan, the arsenals were never able to supply even a fraction of the arms required due to the explosive growth of the nation, and as each citizen was to be armed, the responsibility to obtain arms fell to the citizen as the Federal government was incapable of producing arms fast enough, and the Federal government was in a state of near bankruptcy. This was a re-visitation and experimentation in regards to the Militia being armed out of government armories as described in the Articles of Confederation of 1777 (both experiments failed miserably).

The Militia Act of 1808, did result in the establishment of 35 long-term regionally distributed arsenals under the control of the U.S. Army, and these arsenals sold arms and ammunition directly to the U.S. Citizens for the cost to manufacture same. In fact, when the U.S. Army Department of Civilian Marksmanship started selling these arms, from 1808 up to 1968 the U.S. Army shipped arms and ammunition directly from these arsenals directly to the residential addresses of U.S. citizens. The goal was to ensure that every member of the militia (of all citizens) had suitable arms

Even with the passing of the Militia Act of 1808, a U.S. Citizen was still required to procure, maintain, and keep their own militia arms, in their own homes and on their persons.

The Militia Acts of 1792, Militia Act of 1795, and Militia Act of 1862 created a militia that grew historically ineffective as time went on as the state-controlled training turned into an utter farce that risked national security. By the time of the Spanish-American War, the “militias” were poorly maintained, poorly disciplined, and essentially impossible to control as a cohesive military force. The states had utterly failed in their responsibilities to train and discipline the state militia.

The Militia Act of 1903, bifurcated the militia, and retained the original citizen militia of 1792, but brought forth out of it also a National Guard force that was now called the “Organized Militia.” But, the “original militia” remained in the form of a continuum dating from the time of the early colonial period of 1655, through the Revolutionary War, through the creation of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the various Militia Acts, and still to this day exists by force of law.

A very important Constitutional aspect of the Dick Act (Militia Act of 1903) was that the original militia (of all citizens, required to possess or keep arms) established in 1792 continued unmodified and were not disbanded, and these citizen members were not disarmed or disbanded. Indeed upon passage of the Dick Act was a CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) through the U.S. Army to re-arm the unorganized citizen militia members in a way that U.S. Citizens were actually sold high-quality assault rifles, pistols, revolvers, and ammunition directly from federal armories as their own personal property.

It is notable that to this day, a U.S. Citizen who is not otherwise disqualified may purchase dozens of assault rifles per month directly out of military reserve stocks, with zero authority of the state to control or forbid these purchases.

The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct. The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the President in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second act. Court-martial proceedings (to include the death penalty) were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.

The Militia Act of 1903 also mandated that the National Guard (organized militia) was required to follow the ranks, uniforms, and structures of the regular federal active duty military. Also, that they were to be trained on and possess the same weapon systems as the regular military, and to have training and performance standards that were the same as the regular military. Essentially, the regulations and training standards for the regular military became the regulations and training standards for the National Guard.

The Militia Act of 1903 is of great importance, in that it defines a connection between the arms and equipment of the active or regular military, and the National Guard, and in turn the arms and equipment of the unorganized militia.

By operation of the Militia Act of 1903, the Second Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment, thus all citizens (except those legally disqualified) may possess the arms and equipment of the regular military and indeed are obligated to do so, and to pay for these arms out of their own pocket, with these arms becoming their own personal possessions.

The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the “Dick Act” (also known as the “Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902”), was initiated by United States Secretary of War Elisha Root following the Spanish–American War of 1898 (“Ten Week War”), after the war demonstrated the profound weaknesses in a militia call-out, and in the serious weaknesses in the entire U.S. military as well.

On February 5, 1900, the Secretary of War, Elisha Root published a report in regards to the post-Spanish-America War regarding the status of the Organized Militia/National Guards, and the status of the unorganized militia (the rest of the citizens). This letter may be found as “House Document No. 388, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session” and is described by the author as an “abstract of the militia forces of the United States” and based on a study spanning from 1898 to 1899, and published in 1900. For example, for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this abstract lists a total of 5,185 members of the organized militia, and 453,537 of the unorganized militia. The report further states that the grand aggregate numbers of the nationwide organized militia were 106,339 members, plus 10,343,152 members of the unorganized militia. This report to Congress further details that of the 106,339 organized militia members that 93,812 (88.2%) were designated for infantry service, which proves that the militia is primarily infantry in nature, and thus all modern-day infantry weapons are the most natural arms for militia service. As the report designates that there were 106,339 organized militia members and 10,343,152 members of the unorganized militia that roughly for every 98.2 citizens who was in the unorganized militia that there was only one in the organized militia.

Indeed, the appalling performance of the U.S. Militia forces in the Spanish-American War proved to be a decidedly unreliable fighting force, and in 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt declared: "Our militia law is obsolete and worthless," and an effort was undertaken to immediately refresh the Militia by way of increased funding and updated Militia Laws (which became the Militia Act of 1903), established dual-enlistment, and the harmonized the state militias under federal Army training standards, arms, and procedures.

It is notable that President Theodore Roosevelt joined and served in Colonel Leonard Wood's First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry (known as the “Rough Riders”) in May 1898, and led the right-wing of the attack on San Juan Hill on July 1. This placed President Theodore Roosevelt in the unique position to observe the deep flaws in the Militia system and the ineffective training present in the Militia members who participated in the Spanish-American War. After his service during the War, he became a staunch advocate for strengthen the militia system with his vision of improvement coming into law with the Militia Act of 1901 and then the Militia Act of 1903.

The comment by President Theodore Roosevelt is heralded by some critics of the militia as repealing or nullifying the Militia Acts of 1792, but the Militia Act of February 2, 1901, merely affected cavalry troops (not the unorganized militia), but it did not repeal the Militia Acts of 1792, and indeed to this day the Militia Acts of 1792 remains generally intact, although amended.

In 1898 the National Guard was still governed by the amended Militia Acts of 1792 and almost completely funded, organized, and administered by state governments. But the mobilization of state military forces for the Spanish-American War in 1898, while much more effective than the mobilizations of 1846 and 1861, did clearly demonstrate that the Guard was not a reserve force in any way fit for modern combat conditions. As a result, most of the units organized for the war had a cadre of National Guard officers and noncommissioned officers and large numbers of enlisted men with no prior formal military or militia training. Federal service revealed that the training of national Guardsmen in all aspects of military operations was, for the most part, grossly inadequate to the demands of active duty and extended field operations.

The Act formulated the concept of the National Guard and ensured that all state military forces were simultaneously dual reservists under the authority of the Army Reserve. This last measure was to prevent state governors from using National Guard forces as "private armies", in many ways as had been done in the American Civil War with the militia and to ensure that the President could, at any time, mobilize state military forces into the federal armed forces.

A great factor in the Militia Act of 1903 was the German analysis of the Spanish-American War, where under Kaiser Wilhelm II (1900):

“The invasion of the United States was considered vital by many within the reticent German General Staff. The plan was of great detail, and it included an attack on America's Eastern Seaboard with 60 ships and 100,000 men. They planned to start off by shelling Manhattan and capturing Boston.” - Hew Strachan, The First World War: Volume I: To Arms', (Oxford, 2003)


In 1903, Eberhard von Mantey, a war planner with the German Admiralty Staff, wrote in his diary that the:

"East Coast is the heart of the United States and this is where she is most vulnerable. New York will panic at the prospect of bombardment. By hitting her here we can force America to negotiate." - Jonathan Lewis, The First World War

Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United States were ordered by Germany's Emperor Kaiser Wilhelm II from 1897 to 1903. Wilhelm II did not intend to conquer the US; he wanted only to reduce the country's influence much the same way that the British had “humbled” the rebellious Americans for invading Canada in 1812. His planned invasion was supposed to force the US to bargain from a weak position; to sever America's growing economic and political connections in the Pacific, the Caribbean, and South America; and to increase Germany's influence in those places.

“The first plan was made in the winter of 1897–1898, by Lieutenant Eberhard von Mantey; it mainly targeted American naval bases in Hampton Roads in order to reduce and constrain the US Navy and threaten Washington, D.C. In March 1899, after significant (yet arguable) gains made by the US in the Spanish–American War, the plan was altered to focus on a land invasion of New York City and Boston. In August 1901, Lieutenant Hubert von Rebeur-Paschwitz spied on the target areas and reported back. A third plan was drawn up in November 1903 by naval staff officer Wilhelm Büchsel, called Operation Plan III (Operations plan III in German), with minor adjustments made to the amphibious landing locations and immediate tactical goals.”

“The Imperial German Navy under Alfred von Tirpitz expanded greatly from 1898 to 1906 but was never large enough to carry out the plans. The German Army under Alfred von Schlieffen, responsible for at least 100,000 troops in the invasion, was certain the proposal would end in defeat. The plans were permanently shelved in 1906 and did not become public until 2002 when they were rediscovered in the German military archive in Freiburg.” -- Sietz, Henning (8 May 2002). "In New York wird die größte Panik ausbrechen: Wie Kaiser Wilhelm II. die USA mit einem Militärschlag niederzwingen wollte"

U.S. Senator Charles W. F. Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard and the chair of the Committee on the Militia sponsored the 1903 Act towards the end of the 57th U.S. Congress. Under this legislation, passed January 21, 1903, the organized militia of the States were given federal status to the militia and required to conform to Regular Army organization, training standards, drills, and discipline within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days of annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers and had to meet certain standards.

The Militia Act of 1903 was also greatly in response to the fears of Germans troops invading the United States by way of the North-East, starting with Boston and the planned bombardment of New York City, with the German invasion force actually using Boston as the primary invasion point and then sweeping 100,000 armed German troops into the Boston area as the initial invasion force.

The Militia Act of 1903 still retained the militia, but took a small percentage of this “militia” and formally converted these to “Organized” militia with rigorous courses of study that is essentially based on the regular military forces, while the rest of the citizenry remains in the original militia defined in 1792. Indeed, even to this day the militia remains defined by the Supreme Court of the United States as “all citizens who are capable of bearing arms, even the elderly, infirm or disabled.”

The community-based militias as they were established in 1792 progressively fell into poor discipline over the ensuing 68 years, and the weekly or monthly militia musters (for some U.S. Citizens) devolved into little more than drinking and hunting parties, and in some cases fugitive hunting squads, ”runaway slave-hunting and flogging” and lynching parties, and in no way did they resemble any sort of legitimate cohesive group capable of military operations involved in national or state defenses.

The community-based militia was of tremendous value during the War of 1812, when the militias (using their own personal arms) almost overnight became a fighting force of over 450,000 fighters to supplement the roughly 7,000 professional soldiers in the U.S. Army at the time, and provided the British with the second statement of independence. While the militia responded “enthusiastically” to the call to arms to defend their shores, their “enthusiastic numbers” (of close to a half-million) were an utter fiasco due to disorganization as very few citizens had taken militia or military service with due seriousness.

While one in thirty-one American militia members died, compared to the British casualties of one in roughly eighteen (the British were 172% more effective individually in combat). The British marshaled a combined fighting force of roughly 29,200 and the Americans of roughly 470,000 (a 16:1 ratio, or more simply, that the British were 2752% more effective as a cohesive and well-disciplined force), and the British casualties were remarkably low, the assaults on U.S. cities and forts devastating and the U.S. Militia could not muster, mobilize or move fast enough to repel the British. The “War of 1812” served as an utter humiliation to the United States, and also to Britain and Canada and essentially ended in a stalemate, burning and sacking of Washington DC, and then a last-minute Treaty, but no actual definitive winner.

To add to the difficulties of the War of 1812, when the President of the United States called forth the Militia of the many states to defend Washington DC, the Governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut unlawfully refused to send their Militia to Washington DC as the governors of these states had strongly sided with the British (essentially engaging in Treason, and most certainly insurrection). This refusal to supply Militia resulted in the very fall of Washington DC, and the burning of the White House (Massachusetts then paid a price when the British warships bombarded Massachusetts towns all up and down the coast and carried out invasions).

Indeed, at the end of the Battle of Yorktown (during the Revolutionary War), Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying: "The War of Revolution is won, but the War for Independence is yet to be fought." This “War of Independence” did not stimulate hostilities until 1807 (when England imposed trade restrictions in the United States and began harassing American Ships), and then the United States (in error) declared war and instigated open warfare in 1812 due to American military incursions into Canada. Indeed, the War of 1812 was ignited, when the United States invaded Canada (in error).

While the cause of the War of 1812 is academic, from a military perspective the only reason that the British attempted to “chastise and humble” the “Arrogant Americans” ultimately failed was the mobilizations of the well-armed, but poorly disciplined citizen militia (with their own weapons), which the British had utterly not expected. It was thus, that America established; finally, that she was utterly independent of England, and not merely in extended revolt or insurrection. However, in the writings of military leaders after the War of 1812, there was expressed a strong desire (as early as 1816) to form the militias into a more formidable and cohesive force, and not merely roving bands of weekend hunters. This maturing of the citizen militia came into fruition in 1903 because of the Spanish-American War, which was annealed in the First and Second World Wars, before being sabotaged in 1968, further sabotaged in 1994.

The regular Army was to be armed from the armories of the Federal Government, the National Guard from state held armories, and the unorganized militia from their own personally possessed arms and ammunition (which they are mandated by law to possess, and which the U.S. Army could sell directly to them at a deep discount).

The militia thus encompasses every able-bodied citizen (of both genders) between the ages of 17 and 45 (or 65 in the case of a veteran or volunteer), and also the elderly and infirm.

If a U.S. Citizen is a female, the Supreme Court of the United States tells us that she possesses the exact same rights as any male U.S. Citizen. As membership in the Militia is a right and obligation of all citizens, she must therefore be regarded as no less of a citizen than her male counterpart. Thus, all females who are U.S. Citizens are by operation of Fourteenth Amendment members of the Militia, just like the males, and they may keep and bear arms of their choosing. Under our current form of government, Negros are no longer regarded as slaves of second-class citizens, and neither are females, and neither is allowed to be subjugated, exploited, or repressed. All are equal under the Fourteenth Amendment, and all are to be accorded all of the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizenship, including the female's right to arms, and the right to serve in the Militia.

All members of the unorganized militia have the federal responsibility, absolute personal right, and Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type that is bearable and useable by the individual militia member, as they can afford to obtain and become skillful with.

As some citizens are not financially capable of purchasing a $16,000 custom-fitted sniper rifle, with a $10,000 optical scope and a $63,000 thermal sight, plus a custom-fitted shotgun, and a brace of custom pistols, it became (and still is) important to allow the citizen to purchase the arms most suited to their pocketbook.

Purchase of the arms themselves is only part of the burden of the unorganized militia members, they must also obtain ammunition to use for practice at the range (at costs which can well exceed the cost of the arms the ammunition it is used in), then they must possess those accessories needed to render the arms suitable for military usages, such as silencers, flash suppressors, scopes, bayonets, slings, and so forth. Ultimately, the base cost of the firearm is a fraction of what the U.S. citizen in the unorganized militia must invest in. So, for this reason, arms decisions are left to the discretion of the individual citizen how will arm themselves to the capabilities of what each citizen's own finances will allow and permit.

The “bright line” as it were with the keeping and bearing of arms under the Second Amendment is that the arms essentially had to be bearable by an individual militia member or soldier, and that it had to be operated by the same single person. Thus field artillery, canons, mortars are not generally operable by a single soldier, and such certainly can not as a class be moved or operated by a single soldier of the field of battle, whereas a 10-pound shotgun or a 15 pound individually issued battle rifle can be (a younger militia member would have no problems bearing a 50-75 pound rifle, whereas an older militia member could be able to carry a 15-25 pound firearm).

For example, a U.S. Army M198 howitzer artillery piece weighs around 16,000 pounds, and it requires a 9-man crew to fire it, and a heavy-lift cargo helicopter to transport it into the field. As the Supreme Court notes, this is not the type of bearable infantry arms (carried by one person) that the Second Amendment protects automatically.

Yet, as the howitzer artillery pieced is indeed a weapon used by the organized militia (the National Guard), the Second Amendment and Militia laws would legally permit a U.S. citizen (not otherwise disqualified) to purchase or built one of these devices if they had the resources to do so.

The majority of the Infantry forces of the United States various military services resolve down to a single infantryman bearing their own arms and operating in small groups. The heavy artillery, howitzers, bombers, and attack aircraft may be used in support of the “leg infantry,” but to take or to protect a location, only “boot leather” worn by an Infantrymen is effective.

The highly valued “light infantry” made up of “leg infantry” is what existed at the point in time of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, and indeed all Wars since.

All U.S. Military operations have been dependent on the “leg infantry” more than any other form of force, or any other form of military power… the individual, foot mounted soldier.

Every soldier, from the highest to the lowest rank, no matter the service; all recognize that at the core of their service, they are infantry soldiers… no matter their job… This is the same for all Militia members.

When the signatories of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Militia Acts of 1792, and the Militia Act of 1795 describes “The Militia” their definition at those times define what any scholar of military science would regard as a modern infantryman, carrying into battle a wide range of individually operated lethal weapons and arms.

A soldier must by virtue of their occupation embrace and study violence, yet they must also practice tremendous restraint, discipline, respect the chain of command, and possible solid self-discipline. The ethics of lethal force is a complicated topic, and the ethics of taking another human life, or the inflicting of wounds or injuries by way of military activities a delicate topic and subject, but one which is required in order to maintain a free state. The ordinary citizen may not initially be mindful of the ethics required to professionally kill, wound, or maim another human, but the soldier does fully understand this dilemma and can go about it with a certain amount of coldness and detachment at the time of the battle, even though it is with the greatest of solemnity, sadness and grieving. The ethical warrior only employs their skills with the greatest of respect towards their adversary and embraces skillful diplomacy instead of any form of violence, but when violence is the only resort, they will deploy it will tremendous control and discipline. Indeed, masters of military science such as Sun Tzu taught that the adversary should be convinced to surrender, retreat, or join forces, and that violence by being an available tool, but one that is judicially used.

The modern militia in either the organized roles or reserve militia (or unorganized militia) incorporates the arms and tactics of the modern light infantry to include modern assault weapons.


(to be continued)

Discuss