outfit one selects who is a part of it. You organize a basketball team by selecting qualified individuals, you don't just "organize" everybody that shows up. Even if you start with the notion that any citizen can be a part of the militia what is the definition of "able bodied"? That must be to congress to define.

Let's suppose you take the extremely loose definition of "regulation" to mean only discipline and training congress would be free to expel anybody with a DUI, for example, as showing a lack of discipline. They would be free to require training and if you didn't show up for it you were expelled.

From Heller: From that pool,Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.”

That is an act of congress. If it is still in effect then people over 45 are explicitly NOT in the militia. Even if that statute was changed to allow people over 45 it certainly is NOT a constitutional right to be in the militia since congress excluded people over 45. Why can't they make similar exclusions or additional limitations today? Seems like limiting firearms to single shot weapons is much less of an exclusion than limiting the militia to people under 45. It also seems obvious that if congress can exclude people over 45 then they can exclude other groups.

And what a bunch of mental gymnastics with:

Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

"The militia consists of able bodied men" but "the federally organized militia" WTF? There are now TWO militias? Originalists my ass!




[Post edited by 81_Hokie at 06/24/2021 09:30AM]