Mandatory Gun Ownership
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 8 months ago
The professor:
WOULD MANDATORY GUN OWNERSHIP violate citizens’ constitutional rights? No, because it’s an exercise of Congress’s power to arm the militia under Article I, section 8. In fact, the Militia Act of 1792 required adult males to own guns and ammunition.
I would also point out that it wouldn’t diverge at all from common practice during colonial America.
In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed. When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense.
The seventeenth century was a long time ago, no?
On March 13, 2013 at 1:07 am, Joe said:
I like the idea. Guns are (or should be) mandatory safety equipment. Even in the cockpits of airliners, as they were (optional but sanctioned) until just a few months before 911.
On March 15, 2013 at 4:27 am, Zach said:
But can every person be forced to be the “militia”? I think that’s where this is flawed. The state cannot force a voluntary act, such as serving in a militia.
On March 15, 2013 at 5:55 am, Jim Harris said:
Actually, the U.S. Code, as well as the laws of many states, due “force” militia membership — and have for the life of the Republic.
The U.S. code and some state codes currently identify the “Unorganized Militia.” In the U.S. code, it’s all males between 17 and 45 who are citizens or legal residents; and all females in the National Guard but not on active duty. (I would have to check; but I think that may extend to other military females in an inactive status also).
In Virginia, it icludes all citizens and legal permanant residents of both genders between 16 and 55.
These laws have not been relevant lately because nobody has been forced to do anything related thereto. But, they could be — the legal foundation is there. And, so is the precedent — from colonial times to the 19th century (amd beyond?) militia participation has sometimes been mandatory. Further, you were required to acquire your own weapons and equipment in many cases.
On March 15, 2013 at 5:56 am, Jim Harris said:
… do “force” militia membership …
On March 15, 2013 at 11:40 am, anfo said:
I can see it now…
Gimme mah gubmint gunz! Gimme! Iz mah raht!
I would love to see bills proposing such things as tactics to illustrate ghee idiocy of our enemies. IIRC a county in Georgia required law abiding residents to be armed at all times. Plenty of people ignored the law and it was never unforced, but the message was clear.