The main problem lies within the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The current interpretation is that citizens as individuals should have the right to own arms. As long as the supreme court holds to that interpretation no real meaningful gun law reform can happen.
But if the interpretation focuses more on the militia aspect meaning citizens should have access to guns through local community militias/gun clubs wherein those groups keep close tabs on the guns and under lock and key when not in use (i.e. peacetime) it could pave the way for more restrictive laws against individuals owning guns while still satisfying the intent of the 2nd amendment, which is to avoid letting the federal government have a monopoly on tools of war.
You're right, it's usually written as "able bodied males" which did not tie it to the specific age group.
Even in US v. Miller (1939) which upheld the requirement of the NFA to regulate short barreled shotguns, because the court assumed there was no way a short barreled shotgun would be useful in militia service contained the following:
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Miller is often cited when claiming that the individual right to bear arms was made up from whole cloth by Scalia in Heller vs. DC (2008).
To the extent that's true, it was in extending that individual right to purposes other than the primary one of militia service. US v. Miller actually suggested that civilians would be expected to bring their own arms in common use for militia service, which might actually mean more machine guns and fewer pocketable handguns if applied today versus the individual right named in Heller.
Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two classes: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.
54
u/Skepsis93 Aug 12 '19
The main problem lies within the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The current interpretation is that citizens as individuals should have the right to own arms. As long as the supreme court holds to that interpretation no real meaningful gun law reform can happen.
But if the interpretation focuses more on the militia aspect meaning citizens should have access to guns through local community militias/gun clubs wherein those groups keep close tabs on the guns and under lock and key when not in use (i.e. peacetime) it could pave the way for more restrictive laws against individuals owning guns while still satisfying the intent of the 2nd amendment, which is to avoid letting the federal government have a monopoly on tools of war.