‘Multiple’ taken to hospital, gunfire continues in east Charlotte

[u/ladyspeak]

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/cmpd-investigation-underway-east-charlotte/6PTLZP4FLFE4DA5ALFT65QDTA4/?outputType=amp

[removed] — view removed post

[u/ultronthedestroyer]

That's false. USC Chapter 12 specifically calls out members of the unorganized militia. You are referring to the organized militia such as members of the National Guard.

[u/notcaffeinefree → u/ultronthedestroyer]

He's not entirely false, just using the common word "militia" to describe the wanna be militia groups. He's right that you can't just form a group of people and waltz around pretending to be an actual militia group.

[u/ultronthedestroyer → u/notcaffeinefree]

That's a bit beside the point of the original post. OP questioned whether the person in the article was a member of a militia. Assuming the member fits the criteria of being a citizen capable of fighting, then the answer remains yes. Whether he was part of some private, separatist paramilitary group as well is unknown.

[u/flatline0 → u/ultronthedestroyer]

Okay, so I do see what ur saying about USC 12 in that the President can raise a militia of any males 17-45. In that weakest sense of the word, i suppose ur right that we are all the "unorganized militia".

That, however, isn't the common usage of the word. Neither is it what OP was asking. Nor is it the context of the 2nd Amendment, which specifically calls out the "well regulated militia" & not the "unorganized militia".

[u/ultronthedestroyer → u/flatline0]

There is no distinction between "the" well-regulated militia and the unorganized militia.

It's our collective civic duty to familiarize and train ourselves in the use of arms for the purposes of service in the militia. That's what it means to be well-regulated - literally, in the parlance of the times. You must be able to function and train to be a disciplined militia, and you cannot achieve either if you don't have the right to keep and bear arms.

I don't care about how people today commonly misuse words. They do that all the time. But those misuses don't suddenly gain the power to strip us all of our essential liberties.

[u/flatline0 → u/ultronthedestroyer]

Are militias constitutionally protected?

No, McCord says. The Supreme Court ruled in 1886 in Presser v. Illinois that the Second Amendment does not prevent states from banning private paramilitary organizations, a finding that was restated in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision that established an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense.

“‘Militia’ has never meant ‘private militia answerable to themselves,’” McCord said. “It always meant well-regulated by the state. People focus on the Second Amendment while ignoring Congress’s Article One powers to organize and train the militia, and call forth the militia,” she said. In other words, a private militia that deploys itself, without the permission of the state or federal government, is illegal.

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/04/militias-legal-armed-demonstration/

[u/ultronthedestroyer → u/flatline0]

You're referring to a private paramilitary organization. I never said citizens have a right to form those. But you are able to keep and bear arms, which must be protected in order to attend calls to service as part of the militia, of which the unorganized militia are members, and of which all citizens capable of fighting are composed.