Oklahoma State Militia?

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Isn't the National Guard considered a State Militia?

It may have been at one time. Since the states no longer appoint the officers, it is not the militia.

Woody

 

[WTJ]

This is what I am referring to. If the anti's have their way and get a Court decision stating that the right to bear arms is a collective one applying only to the militias would this not protect the right in our State? Could this be an answer to the problem?
Justice Ginsberg has already stated that Heller was incorrect and that the 2nd refers to a collective and not an individual right. He thinking eludes me as I was always taught that only people have rights. That governments have powers. That the Constitution refers to the Governments powers and the peoples rights.

Michael

I suspect you refer to the terms "organized" and "unorganized" when referring to the collective right. As I read it, these terms were quantified under the 1903 act asOrganized State Militia referring to the National Guard and Unorganized referring to all able-bodied males between the ages of 18-45, and not members of the Organized Militia, or NG, or in other words, those eligible for conscription. Based on what I have read, there was originally a draft of the Second Amendment that prohibited the Federal system from establishment of a standing military, and only provided for a standing naval force. Unfortunately, I no longer recall the proper reference for this. I did a considerable research on this years ago and do not recall everything.

I will say that this is a typical definition as applied by the Statists, who probably have ignored the history and the language of the law.

It is clear to me that, after ejecting the forces of the Crown, the anti-federalists were against a standing army in the US. This proved prescient later, when the federalists employed militia from four states,led by Washington, to enforce Hamilton's whiskey tax. Washington became an advocate of a stronger central gov after Shay's Rebellion, two years prior to the Whiskey Rebellion. The new gov was quick to employ the tactics of the Crown when they wanted money.

I suspect there lies a lesson.

 

[av8r115]

The new gov was quick to employ the tactics of the Crown when they wanted money.

I suspect there lies a lesson.

There's a terrific line in the movie Patriot... "why should I trade one tyrant 3 thousand miles away for 3 thousand tyrants one mile away."

I'm far from an expert on all the events surrounding the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, but I thought that the Government's response to Shay's and the Whiskey rebellions was partly responsible for the Second Amendment. Is that correct?

 

[VladdDImpaler]

Based on what I have read, there was originally a draft of the Second Amendment that prohibited the Federal system from establishment of a standing military, and only provided for a standing naval force. Unfortunately, I no longer recall the proper reference for this. I did a considerable research on this years ago and do not recall everything.

I could be wrong, but if my memory of constitutional history is correct, that clause was amended and then moved to Article I Section 8: Powers of Congress.

 

[henschman]

There is actually a whole title of the Oklahoma Statutes on the subject of the Militia: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/Index.asp?ftdb=STOKST44&level=1

The most applicable parts to this discussion are Section 41 and all of Chapter 5.

I've had the thought that a variation on this would be a good loophole for a pro-gun state to get around the NFA and allow their citizens to arm themselves with class III, destructive devices, etc.

 

[djcorrell]

Militia book for free.

http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/efadGG.htm

 

[MLR]

Isn't the National Guard considered a State Militia?

I do not see how any reference to the Militia in the Constitution could have been talking about the National Guard. Being as the Guard did not come into existence for another hundred years. The militia during that time period was controlled solely by the States. Not so with the current guard.

Michael

 

[WTJ]

I do not see how any reference to the Militia in the Constitution could have been talking about the National Guard. Being as the Guard did not come into existence for another hundred years. The militia during that time period was controlled solely by the States. Not so with the current guard.

Michael

Correct. The National Guard was created by the Militia Act of 1903. The Guard is controlled by the States until under Federal orders.

 

[R. Johnson]

It may have been at one time. Since the states no longer appoint the officers, it is not the militia.

Woody

That's not true. The state appoints its officers, the Feds simply recognize them. The National Guard, along with any SDF, and all men age 17 to 50 something compose the militia according to the militia acts.

 

[MLR]

That's not true. The state appoints its officers, the Feds simply recognize them. The National Guard, along with any SDF, and all men age 17 to 50 something compose the militia according to the militia acts.

The present National Guard is controlled my the Federal Government. The States cannot prevent the Feds from calling them up or even taking control of them during differences between the Federal Government and the individual State.
I do not see how the National Guard could be considered in any way a State Militia.

Michael