3 ms·
No, and your understanding of it is not reflected by the SCOTUS. You do not need to be in a militia to benefit from the 2nd Amendment or access it.
by wait_a_minute 3y ago
No, and your understanding of it is not reflected by the SCOTUS. You do not need to be in a militia to benefit from the 2nd Amendment or access it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- beaeglebeach 3y agoBasically every able bodied citizen male is in the 'unorganized militia' anyway per US code.
- _w1tm 3y agoI thought he meant it the other way around. Since militias are not required for the security of the state, citizens don’t need to bear arms.
- philwelch 3y agoIf you’re a male American citizen of a certain age, you are in the militia. Thats what “militia” means—it refers to the part of the citizenry capable of military service.
- wait_a_minute 3y agoFair enough as it's a very loose definition and doesn't require formalities or any kind of actual restrictions on the right.
- philwelch 3y agoHistorically it did. The Second Congress passed two Militia Acts in 1792, the second of which mandated that each member of the militia buy a musket or rifle along with ammunition and other kit, and to be organized into specific units as directed by their state legislatures.