Second Militia Act of 1792

[raevan]

The age limit is for those who may be called up (drafted) to active military service.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[msg usa]

I went back and was reading more. ......." The Militia of the United States consist of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and....under 45 years of age who are or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States............".
This is all very interesting stuff.

Indeed. This specific phrase inclusive of the part; "..under 45 years of age..." is problematic, in that, if you are OVER 45 years of age, any and all guns that you now have must be immediately shipped or given to those who are 45 and under. OR, shipping them through an appropriate FFL to ME will also satisfy this pesky portion relating to militias....

{I am not an attorney at Law, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!}

[ccw9mm]

yeah, but I don't like the age limit, as I just turned 46 (though I did actually attain the rank of sergeant in the active forces)

Wouldn't mean you couldn't contribute or serve; it would merely mean that 16yrs and younger and those 46yrs and older wouldn't be called. Similarly, these points of the law don't mean that self-defense, being armed and contributing to the common defense are limited to only those within this age range.

[A1C Lickey]

Thanks. I think I'll have to bring that to work with me and look into it a little more.

[Tom G]

When is the goverment supposed to send us a new supply of ammo? I'm running low.

[paramedic70002]

That age limit was placed when the lifespan was a lot shorter. I say we petition the gov to raise it up.

[ELCruisr]

That age limit was placed when the lifespan was a lot shorter. I say we petition the gov to raise it up.

Where do we sign?

[MD_Willington]

Hey, I never received my M16A2 with my green card, .GOV needs to fix that ASAP...

[SIGguy229]

Do you think that my wife would accept the argument that I was just trying to follow federal law? As far as full auto goes, I can’t hit anything on full auto after the first couple of rounds. I put a lot more rounds on target using semi auto then I ever did using full auto.

I tried to use that arguement today...needless to say, it didn't fly. My wife (a little upset I'm leaving for a year tour in Iraq) said--"you're already getting one of those!! You can have it for a year and then you have to give it back!"....she was non-plussed that I wanted to have one in the house full time.

[4my son]

I tried to use that arguement today...needless to say, it didn't fly. My wife (a little upset I'm leaving for a year tour in Iraq) said--"you're already getting one of those!! You can have it for a year and then you have to give it back!"....she was non-plussed that I wanted to have one in the house full time.

SIGguy,

Take care, and check in if you can, We'll be looking for you to post all about it when you get back.

[cmidkiff]

Here's a couple quotes from the DC Decision:

The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.”

On the other hand, it does not follow that a person who is unsuitable for militia service has no right to keep and bear arms. A physically disabled person, for instance, might not be able to participate in even the most rudimentary organized militia. But this person would still have the right to keep and bear arms, just as men over the age of forty-five and women would have that right, even though our nation has traditionally excluded them from membership in the militia.

I think, if this ruling stands, that the 'over 45' crowd (and I'm nearly there) will be just fine :)

I highly encourage you to read the entire decision. It's a real piece of literary art, and a clear demonstration of well formed logical reasoning.

[SonofASniper]

Sigguy - take care and good luck.

And, thank you.

[SA-XD40]

...I highly encourage you to read the entire decision. It's a real piece of literary art, and a clear demonstration of well formed logical reasoning.

Start with Page 18 A. It's just introductory and quite tedious before that but an excellent analysis starting with page 18.

[SA-XD40]

From the Court Case noted at http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...3/04-7041a.pdf :

Footnote 17. 0f course, the District’s virtual ban on handgun ownership is not based on any militia purpose. It is justified solely as a measure to protect public safety. As amici point out, and as D.C. judges are well aware, the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns. It is unnecessary to consider that point, for we think the D.C. laws impermissibly deny Second Amendment rights.

It's interesting to note that this court acknowledges (as do the D.C. Judges) that the D.C. handgun ban only prevents private citizens from owning guns. They manage to say that D.C. is denying citizens their 2nd Amendment Rights... Legal challenge based on legal ruling anyone? D.C. citizens? Anyone?

Keep reading on page 56 ...

[dimmak]

more ammo please..... ;o)