« Interesting statistical work | Main | Toward an operational definition of the militia »
Militia Act of 1792
RKV suggested a reference to the original militia statute adopted by the First Congress might be interesting, with regard to showing what "militia" meant to the framing generation. Here's the Militia Act of 1792, and the Calling Forth Act. The former's relevant portion is:
"An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside....
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself 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 power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred 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. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."
The Act remained on the books until 1903, when the Dick Act replaced it with the language now found in 10 U.S. Code sec. 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."
· militia
Comments
David you are most kind. A point that I suggest should be noted. Gun laws (like the Militia Act) in the founding period required ownership of military grade weapons by citizens, by contrast, modern gun laws seek to disarm the citizens (the unorganized militia) in favor of the police, National Guard (aka the organized [or select] militia) and the Army.
Posted by: RKV at June 22, 2005 07:19 PM
I have always wondered why no one in recent years has taken up a lobbying campaign in Washington, DC, to re-enact in some kind of way the Militia clauses of the Constitution. Not out of duty, but out of financial gain.
From how my non-lawyer eyes see it, there are two sources of potential lobbying dollars defined in the Constitution as it relates to national defense: the Army/Navy clauses, and the Militia clauses.
Without a doubt, there are lobbyists galore in DC pining for a part of the billions allocated under the Army/Navy clauses. There isn't a single lobbyist that I know of that advocates spending on the Militia side.
Now I know the main reason for that is the Militia clauses have been inactive since 1903, but they are still a valid part of the Constitution. I would think there could be millions of dollars out there that could be used/siphoned off in some kind of way under the Militia clauses in today's homeland security environment, if only a group would work for them within the confines of the Congressional appropriations process.
--Poshboy, Washington, DC
Posted by: Poshboy at June 23, 2005 10:40 AM
"Gun laws (like the Militia Act) in the founding period required ownership of military grade weapons by citizens...." You can see gobs of colonial and early Republic militia statutes here.
Posted by: Clayton E. Cramer at June 29, 2005 01:35 PM
"Gun laws (like the Militia Act) in the founding period required ownership of military grade weapons by citizens...."
The rifles of the period were the same rifles that would be used for hunting and sport. If citizens were expected to own "military grade weapons", why where cannon not mentioned? Perhaps it was intended that the militia would be a ready force for quick local deployment; with the military available for the heavy firepower.
Besides, if citizens are expected to own "military grade weapons" where does it end? How about a MK 15 Phalanx home security system?
Posted by: Kenny R. Brown at September 13, 2006 11:51 PM
John Montgomery Newell was captain of his militia company at Bronston KY in 1816. His dad and governor Isaac Shelby both served at the Battle of King's Mountain in 1780. They knew first hand of the difficulties of an all volunteer self-equipped unit. Kentucky passed laws to supplement the militia with funds from land sales. Wayne Co and others enrolled all property owners by the militia company they supported. JM Newell, a vet of the War of 1812 with Micah Taul, drilled his company and encouraged consistent uniform rifles, bullets, bayonets, etc providing to those who could not afford to equip themselves.
Posted by: Fred Weyler at August 2, 2008 11:25 AM