The Un organized Militia Myth:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Article ll, Bill of Rights


How many times have you heard someone proudly claim “I’m a member of the unorganized militia”.

Go read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Militia Act of 1792. No where in the founding documents or in any of the debates ratifying the constitution will you find the term “unorganized militia”. The militia is to be well regulated not unorganized.

A careful study of the original intent of the founding fathers shows that the militia is every US male citizen, capable of bearing arms for the “common defense”.

The “common defense” meant defending your country and state from invasion as well as aiding your local and state government during civil disturbances, unrest, riots terrorist acts. etc.,. by enforcing the “laws” of the union. So, in that sense the militia has a role to act as “military police” to protect their fellow citizens and communities. At the local level, the militia was intended to serve the community exactly as described in the modern day Neighborhood watch and the CERT programs. And finally, as a last resort, the militia is to resist tyranny and the usurpation of constitutional authority within our own government.

In the original context “bearing arms” meant weapons in “common use” by the military. Further, the founders were clear, that with the right to keep and bear arms comes the responsibility or the civic obligation to serve. The word militia is a Latin abstract noun, meaning military service , not an armed group (with the connotation of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. Militia service, by law, was mandatory and All members were required to train and equip themselves with military style weapons .

According to the Supreme Court, the militia is all males capable of acting in concert for the common defense expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves, arms of the kind in common use (by the military) at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment, bearing some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. US vs Miller, 1939

...all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia...the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question (2nd Amend.) out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms... Presser vs Illinois, 1886

How many times have you read news reports...” militia man arrested for violation of federal weapons law and possession of illegal guns”. You may be wondering...”How can they do that?”

The militia predates both the constitution and the federal government. From 1607 until 1903 the colonial, then State and federal governments recognized that the Right of We the People to keep and bear arms for militia duty shall not be infringed.

When the “Civil” War broke out, numerous State and private militia’ volunteered their services. Some of the privately organized militia’ arrived for enlistment better equipped than the federal or state troops. They possessed the latest military weapons including revolvers, repeating rifles and modern artillery. All of this was considered perfectly “legal” by the government at the time.

So, if We the People have both the Right and the civic obligation to serve, to train and equip with military weapons; How is it that citizens such as Hollis Wayne Fincher are arrested for possession of “illegal” arms.

The term unorganized militia is a legal fiction created by the federal government in 1933 and used by them to destroy your inalienable right “to keep and bear arms”. The term is used to relegate the real militia into a state of nothingness. If you are a member of the “unorganized militia” you are no longer recognized as the “real” militia. "If you are lumped into this "unorganized militia" you are just that: unorganized, unarmed,undisciplined, untrained, unsupplied, undeployed, and unwanted as a matter of statute--thoroughly disregarded by Congress, wholly disconnected from your necessary constitutional rights and duties, dispensed with, and withal dispersed within an impotent, disoriented rabble." (1) You are NOTHING but member of the “elligable pool of citizens subject to the draft”.

But, you ask...”How did this happen?”

During the Spanish-American War the Army by passed the state militias by not allowing militia units to participate; only volunteer regiments. Although individual militiamen could join a volunteer unit (and some larger militia units joined en masse), militia units themselves did not participate. Angry National Guard lobbyists didn't want that ever to happen again and lobbied for what became the Dick Act in 1903, and later lobbied for the National Defense Act of 1916.[MP]

The Dick Act and the Permanent Federalization of the Militia

By the dawn of the twentieth century, federal defense policymakers, assisted by a group of retired professional military officers called the National Guard Association, began to agitate for reform of the state militia system. The architect of this reform was Secretary of Defense Elihu Root, whose first success with bringing order to an admittedly disordered militia system[117] was the passage of The Dick Act in 1903.[118]

The Dick Act signified the beginning of the demise of the old, essentially state-controlled, system. [119] The Act required (p.218)the states to submit to a number of federal requirements regarding the training, housing, and equipping of the state militias.[120] The Dick Act was the first in a series of moves by Congress, spurred on by the professional military and groups like the National Guard Association, that made the states offers they could not refuse: free training and equipment in exchange for abdication of control. States, long neglectful of their militias, were all too happy to cede this control.[121]

In sum, the provisions of the bill [Dick bill, 1903] - essentially a compromise --eliminated once and for all the Militia law of 1792. It divided American male citizenry into two classes: the National Guard (organized militia) and the Reserve Militia [this is the 1903 term for unorganized militia] in which were lumped all other male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45. National Guard organization, armament, and discipline were to be identical with those of the Federal Army... as to the Reserve Militia, this legal fiction at least perpetuated the original colonial concept of universal military obligations. - R. Ernest Dupuy, The National Guard: A Compact History p. 92

The National Defense Act of 1908[122] followed the Dick Act. This Act authorized the use of the newly constituted National Guard to serve outside the boundaries of the United States.[123]] However, the 1908 act was too obvious a violation of the Constitution for either the Judge Advocate General (p.219)of the United States Army or the United States Attorney General, both of whom deemed this portion of the Act unconstitutional.[125]

Undeterred, Congress decided to federalize the National Guard. It passed the National Defense Act in 1916 as part of general preparedness in the face of a widening European war.[126] Among the increased requirements placed on the states (and the Regular Army who had to administer these requirements) was an innovative solution to the constitutional prohibition against foreign use of militia troops: the President was authorized to draft state Guard members into national service as federal reserve troops.[127] As a result, the President began to draft whole regiments into the Reserves. Furthermore, the National Defense Act, as a condition precedent to the receipt of federal funds, forced the states to cede most of whatever control over the militia they retained, including the constitutional prerogative to appoint officers to command the militia.[128] As one commentator noted, a recurring fact pattern emerges: the states, faced with ever more demanding standards but unable to pay for upgrading, are forced to accept both federal funding and the resulting loss of control that goes along with that funding. [129]

During WWI, the President exercised the power to draft members of the National Guard into the Regular Army. That power, as well as the power to compel civilians to render military service, was upheld in the Selective Draft Law Cases..

The draft of the individual members of the National Guard into the Army during WWI virtually destroyed the Guard as an effective organization. The draft terminated the members' status as militiamen but did not provide for a restoration of their prewar status as members of the Guard when they were mustered out of the Army. This problem was ultimately remedied by the 1933 amendments to the 1916 Act. These amendments created two overlapping but distinct organizations ...the National Guard of the various states and the National Guard of the United States.

Since 1933 all persons who have enlisted in a state National Guard unit have simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States...Upon being relieved from active duty in the military service of the United States all individuals and units shall revert to their National Guard status.

So, How is it that the federal and state government can arrest a member of the unorganized militia for exercising his Right to keep and bear arms?

Because, if you are not a member of the federalized national guard; the government no longer recognizes you as being a member of the militia. Just ask some of the people who have raised the Second Amendment as a defense in court only to be told that the Second Amendment no longer applies to them or has no bearing on the case in question.

For 100 years We the People have stood idly by and allowed the federal government to usurp their authority over the militia. We the people have allowed them to turn a inalienable Right into a mere government granted privilege which can be given or revoked with a mere political whim.

Many people may argue that "common sense" gun-control laws passed by our legislative body properly grants the government permission to restrict or limit the peoples Right to keep and bear arms. This is a blatant lie. The Constitution is the law of the land and any law or regulation that violates it is null and void from it's inception. Nor are We the People obliged to obey it.

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Marbury vs.Madison, 5 US137, 174, 176 (1803)

But to be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form; it is the right to bear arms in defense of the citizens and the state, that is secured by the constitution, and whatever restrains the FULL and COMPLETE EXERCISE of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is FORBIDDEN by the explicit language of the constitution. Kentucky Supreme Court 1822

To quote Dr. Edwin Veiera...

"America will never lose her freedoms because of attacks from some hodge-podge of foreign "terrorists".

The actual, acute danger lies in the organized efforts of home-grown subversives, boring from within the political process, the bureaucracies, the courts, the media, academia, the cultural sewers that spew out "entertainment", and all the other critical points of entry into the machinery of mass psychological manipulation, then political power, then usurpation, then tyranny.

And which subversives are now using a false concern for "homeland security" as their excuse to amass for themselves ever-increasing, ever-more-abusive powers in its name.

For the most pertinent example, no foreign "terrorists" enjoy either the power or the opportunity to disarm and render helpless common Americans by imposing Stalinist "gun control" on this country. But such Senators as Edward ("Chappaquiddick Ted") Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of their Bolshevik mob are both positioned and prepared to propose (and, with the assistance of Congressional co-thinkers, fellow travellers, and useful idiots, perhaps even to pass) legislation as draconian as any the Georgian Bandit ever imagined. And they are not alone. No, indeed.

State and local politicians, the media, the organized legal and medical professions, the intelligentsia, the modernist churches and synagogues, and all the Establishment's other mouthpieces, front groups, camp followers, and hangers-on are constantly inveighing about how "guns cause crime", and are therefore bad--except, of course, when wielded by the Armed Forces, the Gestapo-like agencies of the General Government, and the increasingly para-militarized State and local police, in the hands of which firearms of the most savagely lethal varieties are doubleplus good, and would never, ever, be used to further usurpation or tyranny.

Americans are being indoctrinated that their country should be covered from sea to shining sea with "gun-free zones" in which all "civilians" are stripped of the tools most effective for defending themselves -- while every miniscule hamlet is to be infested with para-military squads in battle dress, staring down the public with menacing glances and body language, backed up by automatic weapons and armored vehicles (thereby demonstrating the type of "homeland security" the Establishment really believes these places are going to get).

Most ominously, by being relegated to the "unorganized militia" and thus prevented from performing their constitutional duties, average Americans are being demeaned as too unimportant, unqualified, ignorant, irresponsible, and especially politically unreliable to be "call[ed] forth" for the purposes as to which the Constitution explicitly and unqualifiedly requires their services."


We the People are either militia or we are not. The "unorganized militia" is a myth perpetrated upon you by the traitors and usurpers withn your own government. It is past time that We the People, in the words of Nancy Reagon, “Just say no” to this infringement of our inalienable Right.

Demand and exercise your Right to keep and bear arms. Never submit to the infringement of that Right. Re organize yourselves as a Well Regulated Militia, properly trained and equipped to perform your civic duty.

Start today.

Prior to his "death" aboard USSR-downed flight KAL 007 in 1983, Congressman Larry MacDonald had proposed an elaborate, and ORGANIZED, militia model for the United States, based on that of Switzerland.

ConSigCor,

Great post! BTW,

During the Civil War: McClellan said that, upon seeing the colorful New York regiment, "the Fifth [New York Volunteer Infantry] is the best disciplined and soldierly regiment in the Army."

excellent post ConSigCor,I could have said it better.

I like the system the Swiss have...or had, I am not totally aware of their current situation. The Swiss have such a great system of well trained, well equiped citizens, that their tiny army of citizens defeated the German War Machine....that says something.

well i have OHIO MILITIA in big letters on the back window of my truck with two snakes coiled facing each other and it reads dont tread on me. with some good bumper stickers ,so i get lots of looks, as one can imagine. some nod others wave most just look away living in la la land i wish they would wake up.

Larry MacDonalds biggest mistake was that he let the idea come from himself alone, and all it took was to be taken out.


That model can be followed, but carried out only when it's done by individual cells who train more trainers. Once that threshold is crossed there is no stopping it.

I can tell you, America youth isn't going to want to join a militia. I have talked to them about the militia. They have been reading the articles that call us a "fascist, anti-government regime". The sad thing is they are the ones who support fascism with their gun laws.

Without a doubt, the government's propaganda campaign has been far more effective than ours. And there is no denying that sometimes we are our own worst enemy. All you can do is present them with the facts.

You probably won't convince anyone right away, but they will start to question their own assumptions. That's really about all you can do. Some will eventually get it, and some won't.

Onward and upward,
airforce

The militia simply makes sense to me now. I mean, it should be common sense. An armed man is a free man, an unarmed man can never be free. How can you be free if you can't defend yourself and your family?

Colt, I would amend your statement to "most of America's youth won't join the militia". The VMND's first (potential) recruit is 17. I told him about our militia unit here and he told me that he wanted to join.

Though, I live in a town of less than 15k people at the same time.

I've been on here since I was 17. I came looking for this. America's youth seems to be more awake than the adult population. I think this is in part because of the 8 years of Bush bashing that we grew up during. It instilled a distrust of government. I am not saying that the youth is awake and on the move, nothing could be further from the truth, just that we are more awake than the non-youth

very good Tsalagi,

"Organized Militia' is by definition both redundant and overly definitive. I give you the final word on definitions. The 1824 Websters Dictionary definition of Militia.

militia

MILI'TIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

So as you see the phrase Organized Militia is like most things martial and military, redundant. Militia in and of it self means Organized.

That being pointed out the word Militia has most recently been extended to any group of people training privately outside the realm of control of the state. There exists already words and phrases better suited to describe these so called UNregulated militias.

Partisans
Guerrillas
Vigilantes
Militants

Our group not being enrolled, on any roster, aligned with the county nor any state are better described as Militants. We are Christian and church centered so the following fits us better.

Websters 1828
militant

MIL'ITANT, a. [L. militans, milito, to fight.]

1. Fighting; combating; serving as a soldier.

2. The church militant, is the christian church on earth, which is supposed to be engaged in a constant warfare against its enemies; thus distinguished from the church triumphant, or in heaven.

So the current era invented Unorganized militia may very well be a distasteful catch all phrase to describe groups like ours and others as noted above.

Words have meaning. Sadly for too long now many Americans have forgotten that our Language is indeed critical in our survival as a Republic.

Just my 2 cents.
DJ


"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed.. .No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."
D. Webster