Date registered: May 2006
Vehicle: Puke-colored 79 240d, starts occasionally
Location: Bushcock-on-Blairlips, Somerset
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No, that is simply not correct. The second is not the only place militias are mentioned, the Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief, and it gives Congress specific rights to regulate it:
The Congress shall have the power To lay and collect
Taxes, .... to provide for calling forth the
Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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, reserving to the
States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the authority of training the Militia according
to the discipline prescribed by Congress; ....
The system is simple: state constitutions name the Governor as Commander in Chief of the State Militia, and the President is Commander-in-Chief when they in turn are called on for Federal duty. Your assertion this is some amphormous term is well, silly. It is obvious by law that militias in this country are governmental entities.
"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."
The constitution is clear - the Militia is governmental, while the right of unlimited possesion of weapons necessary to maintain a militia is reserved to the people.
Last edited by ByteMe; 07-15-2006 at 09:54 PM.