#42
    I saw something which led me to b'lieve you might require some-
thing to aid you in your 'discussions' with the anti-gunners who
maintain that the 'well regulated militia' clause of the second
amendment is a collective (as in National Guard) as opposed to an
individual right.
    Ok. There are several referents to the fact that this isn't so.
The first is known as Title 10, U.S. Code, section 311:
                          -   -         -  -
| 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 [32 USCS | 313], under 45 years of age who are, or who
have made a declaration to become, citizens of the United States and
of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers
in the National guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are ---
        (1) the organised militia, which consists of the National
Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganised militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members National Guard or the Naval militia.
                         -   -         -   -
    Hmmm, THAT appears clear enough for me. Section 313, BTW, deals
with max age exceptions.
    The next is nothing less than an Act of Congress. I won't bother
to quote it here, it's basically a repeat of the above. It's
identified as 57th Congress, Session II, Chapter 196, dated Jan 21,
1906. Again, clear enough justification for the concept of the
individual right to keep and bear arms.
                          -   -         -  -
    The third are various decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that,
while not specifically concerned with the 2nd amendment, do directly
address it. Presser v. Illinois (1886), clearly extends the 2nd
amendment prohibition to the states (assuming one can successfully
argue that the 2nd only applies to the federal gov't). Patsone v.
Pennsylvania (1914), U.S. v. Miller (1939), and Dred Scott v. Sandford
(1856), all speak of the individual (as opposed to the collective)
right to keep and bear arms. The Presser and Miller cases speak
directly of not the mere _right_ but the _explicit duty_ of
individuals to possess arms, the better to carry out their militia
responsibilities to the gov't at need.
                          -   -         -  -
    This stuff is all right there in the law books. These references
should be available in any law library or regular library of decent
size. This data should be given wide distribution so that none can
say, "I knew it not."

        "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."


=============================================================================