What does the US Code actually say about "the militia"? Functionally, there are only three laws on the books that deal specifically with "the militia". Title 10 USC, Chapter 13, Sec. 312 defines who is exempt from serving in the militia; Section 313 of Title 32 extends the term of service in the militia to honorably discharged members of the Active Duty Armed Forces to the age of 65. It is only in Title 10 USC, Chapter 13, Sec. 311 that the militia is specifically defined:
Title 10 USC Ch. 13 Sec. 311
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
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.
SOURCE
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,
Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)
Now, read the above cite carefully. You will note that it splits the Militia into two parts, the "organized" militia, and the "unorganized" milita. The "organized militia" is also known as the "National Guard".
So, why is this written in so cumbersome a manner? Anti's love to try and cite only part of this, claiming that the National Guard - and ONLY the National Guard - is the militia. It is not. Why?
The Draft. That's why.
When the Draft is put into effect -- and it was proposed for reinstatement as recently as GWB's first term, by a certain New York City Democrat -- it is termed "Selective Service". Most people assume this to refer to the drawing of people's names by a draft board ("Your number is up!"); in fact, it is the "selective" activation of the "unorganized militia", as individuals, for military service. The catch is that there is no more - or less - that the Government can add to this, without raising "uncomfortable" ideas.
Clearly, then, Congress has failed to provide effective regulation to the Militia...and, in the resulting "Catch-22", that leaves all other aspects of the militia that Congress does not cover -- arming, equipping, training, stocking of supplies, etc. -- to the individual members of the Militia...
...That's right, kids: personal responsibility, here. As a Citizen, you are only obligated to do two things: Fill out the Census form, and bear arms in defense of the nation.
The fact that so many people will argue strenuously that they do not have to do either is one of the fundamental problems in the United States, at this writing.
Congress -- with the active collusion of the Media -- has blinded most of the neutral center to this fact through the simple mechanism of ignoring it: if they don't talk about it - ever - people will eventually forget about it.
And they //desperately// want you to forget about it, for two reasons:
1. Since they want more power and control over you, they cannot promote the notion of "personal responsibility"...until you are on trial for violating any of a truly Byzantine array of mutually-contradictory laws, of course. Then, it is ALL about "personal responsibility".
2. If you, the Citizen, start assuming personal responsibility for messy, dangerous things like military service -- we //are// talking about the Militia, remember: militia --> military -- you just might start reading (and worse, believing) the words of all those "dead, White, European males", to wit, that it is YOUR DUTY to remove the Government by force, in the event that it becomes necessary.
Nervous, yet?
Good.
But still, the Anti's are relentless. Their response to this, beyond telling you that you are "crazy" for even //thinking// such a thing, is to suggest that the "arms" of the militia should be kept in locked armories rather than in the personal possession of the individuals that make up the militia; that there is in effect no "individual mandate" to the "bearing of arms", flying in the face of historical records from around the world.
Right there, that should tell you who these people are, because the modern notion of "collectivism" is a hallmark of something demonstrably different than what the Constitution is talking about.
But I digress.
The next line of attack runs along the line of "What's the point? No redneck, citizen militia can resist an army!" -- I'm sure that the peoples of Haiti, the Philippines, Cuba, Nicaragua, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, and a host of other countries (including the people of Syria) agree with that...I'm sure that both Lenin and Trotsky would nod sagely, as well...Not to say it wouldn't be bloody -- but then, Anti's seem to perceive life to be a video game world set to "South Korean Level".
The final Anti argument about militias (remember, we're not talking about personal safety or hunting, anymore), when all else fails, is what I call the "nuclear option":
"You are CRAZY!!! What? Do you seriously want everyone to have a NUCLEAR BOMB?!?!?!"
...As if that lends legitimacy to their argument.
In fact, the SCOTUS rides to the rescue, yet again...albeit in a 'Keystone Kops' kind of way.
'Miller vs United States, 1939', is often cited by Anti's as some kind of bizarre justification for...something. I'm not entirely sure what.
The case in question concerned a man whose sawed-off shotgun was confiscated under the "National Firearms Act of 1934", for failure to pay a transfer tax on the weapon, as it had traveled across state lines, and was thus subject to the tax, even though it wasn't for sale.
(And for the Anti's still reading this, consider: NFA'34 did not "ban" automatic weapons -- it only limited legal access to them to those wealthy enough to pay the tax.)
In any case, when the weapon was seized for non-payment of taxes, Miller sued, claiming that the seizure of a weapon covered by the tax violated his rights under the 2nd Amendment. The lower court held in his favor. The government appealed, and the SCOTUS heard the case.
The SCOTUS overturned the lower court's decision, citing that a firearm was only protected under the 2nd Amendment if it had "...some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia..."
Now, aside from the fact that anyone who can honestly not see a "military utility" in a sawed-off shotgun should not be ruling on a law concerning military-pattern weapons, the Court also made reference to a very interesting idea:
"...Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense..."
Note the term 'ordinary military equipment'. To someone not familiar with the military - and to be honest, even to someone who //is// familiar with the military - this is an odd phrase. However, 'ordinary military equipment' means something very specific: the weapons and equipment normally carried into combat and operated by one person.
Why is this significant?
Because it includes, and therefore extends the protection of the Second Amendment to, any weapon that 'contributes to the common defense' that can be carried //and// operated by one person.
So what?
So -- that means that it protects ALL fully-automatic, 'military-pattern' rifles, such as AK-47's and M-16's, not simply their "civilian-legal" clones...but it also protects things like hand grenades, grenade launchers like the M203, light anti-tank rockets such as the M72 LAWS and the RPG7-series, landmines and demolition charges.
Significantly, it does NOT protect weapons like M-60 or M2 .50 machine guns, mortars, artillery, tanks...or nuclear weapons...
...But again - so what? Take another look at 'Barron v. Baltimore':
The Constitution, except where specifically noted, only applies to the Federal Government. This means that the Federal Government -- neither Congress, the President, the SCOTUS, nor the various agencies that answer to them -- can legally enact any legislation or regulation which eliminates the rights enumerated in the Amendments, including the Bill of Rights, without an actual Congressional Amendment being duly passed allowing them to do so. See the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments...
...Which means, of course, that every single Federal gun control law restricting access to arms that "...could contribute to the common defense...", which are part of the "...ordinary military equipment..." -- whether literally, as with the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban", or obliquely, as with NFA'34, which specifically intended to place certain types of weapons beyond the reach of the 'common man' -- is illegal.
And there is no legal obligation to obey an illegal law -- only practical ones.
(author unknown)