State Militia ?

[tlandon]

"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".
Please explain to me what a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to security of a free State" means.
Does Indiana have a "well regulated Militia"? Is that phrase referencing the US Government Forces?

Can we have a civilian militia equally armed to the Federal Military Forces?
Wasn't the original idea to have a civilian militia that could stand up to the existing government if it proved to be tyrannical and or oppressive?

I don't understand, I guess.

The Indiana State Peoples Militia. Armed with the same weapons that the US Government is issued? Numerous bases throughout the state.
And funded by the people of the State of Indiana. All state citizens required to serve tours of duty.

I know there are all kinds of details that would have to be worked out. But, do you think the sheeple would support it?

 

[TaunTaun]

Indiana's well regulated militia is all persons of military age 17 and above. Article 12 of the Indiana Constitution.

ARTICLE 12. Militia
Section 1. Composition

Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.
(History: As Amended November 3, 1936; November 5, 1974).

Section 2. Commander-in-chief

Section 2. The Governor is Commander-in-Chief of the militia and other military forces of this state.
(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).

Section 3. Adjutant general

Section 3. There shall be an Adjutant General, who shall be appointed by the Governor.
(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).

Section 4. Conscientious objectors

Section 4. No person, conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, shall be compelled to do so in the militia.
(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).

Section 5. Repealed

(Repealed November 5, 1974).
Section 6. Repealed

Source last updated 1999

 

[HoughMade]

Congratulations! You've probably already been drafted:

Indiana Constitution, Article 12, § 1

A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this State. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.

Ind. Code § 10-16-6-1 (2012).

Under Article 12, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, the militia consists of all persons who are at least eighteen (18) years of age except those persons who are exempted by the laws of the United States or of Indiana.

...but the 2nd Amendment is not predicated upon the membership in a formal militia. It was written in a time when a "militia" consisted of, essentially, everyone old enough to bear arms. That has been, essentially, the reading the Supreme Court has been using. The idea is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms and it is assumed that these people​ will be the militia if and when it is needed.

 

[TaunTaun]

So, by Indiana constitution, we of a majority age ARE the militia, and as we have a commander-in-chief, and structure in case of need, our constitutional rights should never be infringed....

That is one of the big reasons why people such as Brad Rogers, Sheriff of Elkhart County has stated that he will not comply with oppressive federal gun control laws...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Does Indiana have a "well regulated Militia"? Is that phrase referencing the US Government Forces?

You have already been shown Indiana's militia, but the militia has nothing to do with the "US Government Forces". Perpich v. Department of Defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wasn't the original idea to have a civilian militia that could stand up to the existing government if it proved to be tyrannical and or oppressive?

The militia clause is precatory (a desire reduced to writing) or a statement of purpose just like the First Amendment's statement of purpose ("petition" right).

Statement of purpose does not define a right. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are inquiring as to original intent the best work on it is Halbrook's Let Every Man Be Armed. I think you'll get a lot out of it.

Stephen P. Halbrook - Books - That Every Man Be Armed

Think of the militia in terms of a Venn (well, Euler circle) diagram. The militia is the small circle inside the larger circle of the "right to keep and bear arms". A well-trained militia springs forth from the larger pool of the gun culture which acts as the "seed bed" for fighting men familiar with arms.

Where A is the militia.

Where B is the gun culture/right to arms.

Where C is the United States Government.

Just some thoughts, because I think the country is going down the toilet and someday we should seperate from the Union. I think Texas will be the first to do so.

Well, secession did not work out so well for the South.

Why would you think Indiana buying the same snake oil of secession would help anything?

Why do you think Texas would leave the Union again? Don't you think Texas learned its lesson and the warning that Sam Houston gave them before the Civil War?

 

[HoughMade]

As to Texas leaving the union....other than zoning laws, I don't see Texas as much of a paradise of liberty.

 

[tlandon]

"So, by Indiana constitution, we of a majority age ARE the militia, and as we have a commander-in-chief, and structure in case of need, our coTnstitutioTonal rights should never be infringed...".
Who is my Commander and Chief?
I don't know of any "structure". If we needed to enact a call to arms how would that be done. I guess I am just dumb.

 

[tlandon]

My train of thought says we should have "troops" at the ready and equally armed to the Federal Governments. If we "The Militia" had to bear arms against the government, tomorrow, we would get slaughtered. We don't have access to the same weapons as the Federal Troops. When the 2nd amendment was written weapons were not like they are today, obviously. Why can't our "Militia" have automatic weapons, tanks, aircraft, etc.? Makes no sense to me.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Who is my Commander and Chief?

When called? Michael Richard Pence, 50th Governor of the State of Indiana.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

My train of thought says we should have "troops" at the ready and equally armed to the Federal Governments.

The people of Indiana should pay for some sort of non-Title 10 troops that would do . . . what exactly? What would you eliminate in the state budget to pay for the men you will have on duty?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As to Texas leaving the union....other than zoning laws, I don't see Texas as much of a paradise of liberty.

Don't pick the flowers!

I mean, I heard from a friend that it is a real bad idea to announce in a gun shop that you want to send your girlfriend flowers back from Texas. This friend just thanked the deputy and went to Bandera and bought some jewelry instead.

 

[ATM]

...Why can't our "Militia" have automatic weapons, tanks, aircraft, etc.? Makes no sense to me.

Our rulers prefer a monopoly (or at least a great disparity) of force. Most rulers do.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why can't our "Militia" have automatic weapons, tanks, aircraft, etc.? Makes no sense to me.

You want the State of Indiana, out of a budget of 14.4B, to write checks for Abrams tanks at 6M a whack, and to maintain them, crew them, and buy fuel? And you want aircraft on top of that?

Where will this money come from? Maybe we tax politicians per lie? Indiana will have the greatest military on Earth.

 

[Kutnupe14]

My train of thought says we should have "troops" at the ready and equally armed to the Federal Governments. If we "The Militia" had to bear arms against the government, tomorrow, we would get slaughtered. We don't have access to the same weapons as the Federal Troops. When the 2nd amendment was written weapons were not like they are today, obviously. Why can't our "Militia" have automatic weapons, tanks, aircraft, etc.? Makes no sense to me.

Makes sense to me. At least withholding certain military grade equipment from the populace.

 

[Thor]

Rep Harman submitted a bill last session to make the state militia more formal with the thought that if you don't a: have a method to call it up. And b: have no method to even recommend training. you don't actually have a militia.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...mendment/329855-please-support-hb-1401-a.html

Couldn't get it heard though.

In 1775 a musket was the equivalent of automatic weapons...the most advanced military hardware of the time.

The first automatic weapons that went to war with the US military were bought by a pair of sisters for their brother who was going to the Spanish American War, a pair of Colt Potato Diggers in 7x57 Mauser. There is no reason to not allow citizens to own whatever they can afford.

 

[Thor]

Also, it is interesting to note that the state of IN was the only state to be able to respond in time for a call up for the Spanish American War because of the existence of the Indiana Volunteers. The INV fought in the Civil War with distinction. MG Lew Wallace was a Captain in the INV in the Mexican War...there's a rich history there that could be revived.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Makes sense to me. At least withholding certain military grade equipment from the populace.

Only if the civilian police are also restricted from said equipment does this even begin to approach acceptability, however, the general populace, according to the Founders, were to be the ones with the greater level of force, especially considering that there was to be no standing army, and, to quote Mason and others, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Kut, I recognize you are biased by your own self-interest, and that's both understandable and acceptable as your opinion and the basis for that opinion. What it is not, at least to me, is acceptable as a basis for public policy.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kutnupe14]

Only if the civilian police are also restricted from said equipment does this even begin to approach acceptability, however, the general populace, according to the Founders, were to be the ones with the greater level of force, especially considering that there was to be no standing army, and, to quote Mason and others, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Kut, I recognize you are biased by your own self-interest, and that's both understandable and acceptable as your opinion and the basis for that opinion. What it is not, at least to me, is acceptable as a basis for public policy.



Blessings,
Bill

I'm not biased at all. I think civilians should have to same tools as anyone in LE. I also think that with regards to the military, some things should be verboten to police as well as the populace. Our military carries a LOT of firepower. I think it's insane to believe that the same things in the hands of professional soldiers should be of equal access.

 

[CathyInBlue]

What law enforcement applicability would a Tomahawk cruise missile, Apache gun ship, or naval frigate have? At least for a semi-land-locked state like Indiana. Hawai'i or Florida may have profoundly different law enforcement needs.

Still, there is no reason that just because a weapon system has no legitimate LE use that it's construction, transportation, ownership, use, possession, sale, purchase, or trade by common citizens should be impugned, just the possession or use by on-duty LEOs and the ownership by LE agencies.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What law enforcement applicability would a Tomahawk cruise missile, Apache gun ship, or naval frigate have? At least for a semi-land-locked state like Indiana. Hawai'i or Florida may have profoundly different law enforcement needs.

Alright, I know everyone wants to go kick the cops, but the thread is about funding a state militia.