My Issue With The 2008 Second Amendment Decision

[Nous]

I would suggest, as a compromise, that if we want to remove the right of people to own firearms, the government should offer a guarantee of protection and be required to give generous financial compensation to victims of crime.

Is it OK if the government guarantees an equal amount of protection against gun crime that privately owned guns provide? I think privately owned guns are responsible for thwarting a couple of dozen criminal acts per year in the US. Confiscating all guns in private hands, without doing anything else, will undoubtedly meet that quota.

 

[Curious George]

Emphatically disagree! If that were the sine qua non of the Second Amendment, then there would be no need and no reason whatsoever to begin with the initial clause about a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. The Framers knew quite well how to write a sentence to express what they intended. If all they wanted to do is to “was to prevent the federal government from taking weapons away from the people,” they would have stated a sentence like the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law that takes any person's weapons away from him.” That isn't even close to what the Second Amendment states.

Then our disagreement will likely continue. You see a statement that intends something very different, and I read a sentence that very much communicates said intent.

 

[siti]

@Nous - of course I was talking about the second amendment - I was obviously responding directly to your comment about Justice Steven's out of context re-interpretation of the second amendment. I agree that Heller's decisions was also taking the second amendment out of context - and the key reason they didn't have a unanimous decision (one way or the other) is that both sides were taking the second amendment out of context and ended up setting a legal precedent that makes it more difficult for any meaningful resolution. The second amendment is itself an anachronism because there is clearly no need of a well-regulated militia made up of the ordinary folks of the state to defend the liberty that the state has now entrusted to the care of professional military forces. But arguing that the individual liberty to bear arms is not what the second amendment meant to protect is pointless because it clearly is what it meant to protect - and for good reason at that point in history. The issue now is not about reinterpreting the second amendment but about whether it should be retained or thrown out altogether. And the US seems to have elevated a 200 hundred year old 'amendment' to the agreed social rights of that society at that time to the status of a divine and eternally inviolable declaration of individual human liberty. Obviously, that's going to have to change at some point. But I don't see how fiddling around with the imagined intent of a prefatory phrase composed against a 2 centuries old socio-political backdrop is going to cut the mustard. That phrase was about their world, not ours.

 

[Nous]

Then our disagreement will likely continue. You see a statement that intends something very different, and I read a sentence that very much communicates said intent.

You haven't told us why the Framers included the prefatory clause of the amendment. What is its purpose, if the amendment were merely intended to prevent the government from taking away people's guns?

And, if a law such as the DC law, which merely prohibited the registration of a single particular type of gun, the most deadly type of gun, is unconstitutional, then how is it that laws prohibiting individuals to own machine guns and nuclear weapons constitutional?

 

[Nous]

[Justice Steven's out of context re-interpretation of the second amendment.

You make all these assertions, but you haven't shown that anything Justice Stevens said is erroneous. The fact that you believe something doesn't make it true. You need to be able to substantiate that Stevens interpreted something erroneously if that's what you want us to conclude.

the individual liberty to bear arms is . . . clearly is what it meant to protect

(1) Justice Stevens analyzed the phrase “to keep and bear arms,” noting that it describes a unitary right, and that the unmodified term “to bear arms” refers to a military purpose. His footnote 9 shows this interpretation to be extensively corroborated:

See Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 23–25. Amici determined that of 115 texts that employed the term, all but five usages were in a clearly military context, and in four of the remaining five instances, further qualifying language conveyed a different meaning.​

(2) What do you mean by “individual liberty to bear arms,” and how did the DC law that merely prohibited the registration of one type of arms allegedly violate that this alleged “individual liberty”? Merely asserting such claims is pointless; one must be able to argue one's claims, i.e., to deduce one's claims from facts.

As Heller shows, the critical issue in specifying the right intended to be secured by the Second Amendment is the purpose for which arms are used, not how many people it takes to operate any particular armament. If the Framers intended to secure a personal-use purpose for arms, then why did they employ the phrase “the right of the people,” rather than “a person's right”? If the Framers intended the amendment to define a personal-use purpose, such as self-defense, then why didn't they just say that, as several of the state constitutional analogs specified at the time? The Framers were certainly aware of these state declarations that specified a personal-use purpose of self-defense, but they chose not include such a purpose in the Second Amendment.

I don't see how fiddling around with the imagined intent of a prefatory phrase composed against a 2 centuries old socio-political backdrop is going to cut the mustard.

It's a primary rule of statutory construction that all words, phrases and clauses are given effect in interpreting the meaning of a statute; no words, phrases or clauses are to be considered superfluous. The fact that the whole prefatory clause of the Second Amendment runs contrary to what one believes the amendment is about merely shows the error of one's belief.

 

[siti]

The fact that the whole prefatory clause of the Second Amendment runs contrary to what one believes the amendment is about merely shows the error of one's belief.

No it doesn't - it shows that it was framed in a time in which it was expected that "a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - Constitution of Virginia (Article I, Section 13) - obviously the second amendment drew pretty directly from this and, linguistically, it is also obvious that the right to keep and bear arms followed from the need for a militia to protect the state - the people had to keep arms and be trained to bear arms in order to meet that need - but the right was not dependent on the militia actually being engaged in a conflict - that just couldn't have worked in the late 18th century and would certainly have been counter to what the framers wrote elsewhere about keeping guns (my bold)...

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

OK - that's enough of this...the intent is pretty obvious - the problem is it was written for a world that no longer exists.

 

[Nous]

No it doesn't - it shows that it was framed in a time in which it was expected that "a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - Constitution of Virginia (Article I, Section 13) - obviously the second amendment drew pretty directly from this

Oh, good lord, siti, you have quoted (part of) the sentence from VA's current constitution. Obviously you haven't done any research or reading on this this topic. Getting your "information" from NRA (member) webpages will mislead you.

Here is the whole of Section 13, Article I of VA's current Constitution, clearly referencing the military context of the provision:

Article I. Bill of Rights

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.​

Constitution of Virginia - Article I. Bill of Rights

This is from Virginia's Declaration of Rights of 1776, again explicitly referencing the military context of the provision:

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.​

Virginia Declaration of Rights - Wikipedia

Note the phrase "the body of the people" using singular nouns that can only refer to something collective, not independent individuals. Note the phrase "trained to arms". These phrases are not referring to a personal-use right of individuals, where any individual who is not "trained to arms" can go buy any kind of armament he wishes at Wal Mart or another individual and start shootin'. Right?

Justice Stevens quoted the relevant proposals sent by the Virginia Ratifying Convention:

“17th, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.” Elliot 659.

“19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.” Ibid.​

The 19th item further illustrates the military relationship of the proposal and of the idiom "to bear arms".

The right intended to be secured by the Second Amendment pertains to a military purpose, and has nothing do with an individual having an alleged right to possess handguns, machine guns or nuclear weapons, etc., for his/her own person use. Correct?

 

[Nous]

Just to overemphasize the facts: Those who crafted the Second Amendment were entirely aware of the state Declarations that specified a personal-use right of bearing arms for purposes of self-defense, such as Vermont's and Pennsylvania's identical provisions in their respective Declaration of Rights:

XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.​

https://www.sec.state.vt.us/archive.../vermont-constitutions/1777-constitution.aspx

But such personal-use right was obviously not included in the Second Amendment. Indeed, the relevant proposal that Madison submitted to Congress made explicit by its final conjunct clause that the topic of the sentence was about military service, not about a personal-use right:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.​

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

 

[`mud]

Strange, this thread. I've read a lot of it, and it goes on and on about person's rights.
When this amendment, the second, was written about muskets and cannons.
Maybe we could take the amendment for what it was intended, and eliminate AR's,
and any gun that could hold more than one bullet, or `slug`.
I like to think of the frame of mind of the writers of this amendment,
as to their imagining the advancements that we've made.
I think the amendment should be re-written to modern terms,
and the `militia` be re-designed, and the weapons restricted to `non-war` weapons only.
Along those lines of thought. But that's just silly, isn't it ?
Just silly thinking out loud....forget it !

 

[Walter Bailey]

You haven't told us why the Framers included the prefatory clause of the amendment. What is its purpose, if the amendment were merely intended to prevent the government from taking away people's guns?

And, if a law such as the DC law, which merely prohibited the registration of a single particular type of gun, the most deadly type of gun, is unconstitutional, then how is it that laws prohibiting individuals to own machine guns and nuclear weapons constitutional?

If I may, the prefatory clause was clearly intended to ensure that state militia regiments could not be disarmed or replaced with a large standing army. At the time, every state has its own organized militia. And soon afterward, the organized militia was codified by act of Congress - the 1792 Militia Act- to require all men 18-45 to provide themselves with a good firearm and enroll in the militia of their state.

 

[Walter Bailey]

Iow, when it is necessary for a militia to be activated, no one is allowed to pevent members from bearing arms. Otherwise, why even mention militias in the phrase? It would have been left out or indicated in a different paragraph.

In 1789, every state government oversaw standing militia regiments that were always active.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State reads as follows:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled [5-4 majority] that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.
sourcfe
​

Personally, I feel this is an extremely bad ruling, and here's why, but first bear with me for a moment while I establish a point of grammatical structure.

If I, a swimming coach, said, Because you're a member of the swimming team, your right to go swimming can't be denied by the lifeguards " it means that, being a member of the swimming team you have a right to swim. Now, the very same meaning can be conveyed by reversing the order of the two clauses. "your right to go swimming can't be denied by the lifeguards because you're a member of the swimming team." See what's going on? No matter how you read it, your right to swim hinges on being a member of the team. Not a member? then the lifeguards could well stop you from swimming.

Now, taking a look at the Second Amendment we again read:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

And reversing the order of the two clauses:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,."
​

Both mean exactly the same thing, but most telling is the "because," in that it more clearly establishes the reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But, what if there is no reason? Not a member of the swimming team, or no necessity for a well regulated militia? Then there's no guarantee you can swim, or any legal reason you have a right to keep and bear arms.

Now here's the kicker: because there is no "well regulated militia" composed of citizens using their own fire arms assembled to "secure a free state," and no foreseeable need for one, no Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms exists---or at least, should exist.

In my opinion (I know everyone's been waiting for this ), if you want to claim a Constitutional right to have a firearm, then you darn well better be a member of a well regulated militia that's been organized to secure a free state.

That said, I can only shake my head in disbelief at the court's ruling. And as it stands, the court's ruling treats the 2nd Amendment as simply stating, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," being immaterial.
.

So tell me, after George Washington became president.....

Where were the people and their arms respectively back in early America?

Pretty much sums the meaning of the words for which you would have had an unarmed citizenry in the 1700s. Particularly the question did the non militia members retired or otherwise have and kept arms?

It's pretty much case closed on exactly what the words meant if history shows that individual people freely kept and bared personal arms for themselves.

I say let history speak for itself before we start changing meanings on what was written by the way guns were kept and handled in the past.

 

[Walter Bailey]

We have the National Guard. Plus, so far no one has seen any need to establish such a well regulated militia. Not a member of such a well regulated militia, then no Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, IMO.

.

Actually they did through several acts of Congress in the decades before the National Guard was created. The first was the 1792 Militia Act which required all able men ages 18-45 to serve in the militia regiments of their state by arming themselves and appearing periodically for drill. They were also liable for call up.

 

[Walter Bailey]

So tell me, after George Washington became president.....

Where were the people and their arms respectively back in early America?

Pretty much sums the meaning of the words for which you would have had an unarmed citizenry in the 1700s. Particularly the question did the non militia members retired or otherwise have and kept arms?

It's pretty much case closed on exactly what the words meant if history shows that individual people freely kept and bared personal arms for themselves.

I say let history speak for itself before we start changing meanings on what was written by the way guns were kept and handled in the past.

According to act of Congress in 1792 all men ages 18-45 were conscripted into the organized militia of their state and required to drill periodically and officers who held state commissions. They were also subject to call up to serve under the Federal government. Washington used 15,000 militia from three states to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

 

[Walter Bailey]

No it doesn't - it shows that it was framed in a time in which it was expected that "a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - Constitution of Virginia (Article I, Section 13) - obviously the second amendment drew pretty directly from this and, linguistically, it is also obvious that the right to keep and bear arms followed from the need for a militia to protect the state - the people had to keep arms and be trained to bear arms in order to meet that need - but the right was not dependent on the militia actually being engaged in a conflict - that just couldn't have worked in the late 18th century and would certainly have been counter to what the framers wrote elsewhere about keeping guns (my bold)...

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

OK - that's enough of this...the intent is pretty obvious - the problem is it was written for a world that no longer exists.

The organized militia didn’t only exist in time of war either. According to Federal law-the 1792 Militia act-all able bodied men ages 18-45 had to be enrolled, participating in regular drills under state appointed officers and subject to call up for Federal service AT ALL TIMES.

 

[Walter Bailey]

@Nous - of course I was talking about the second amendment - I was obviously responding directly to your comment about Justice Steven's out of context re-interpretation of the second amendment. I agree that Heller's decisions was also taking the second amendment out of context - and the key reason they didn't have a unanimous decision (one way or the other) is that both sides were taking the second amendment out of context and ended up setting a legal precedent that makes it more difficult for any meaningful resolution. The second amendment is itself an anachronism because there is clearly no need of a well-regulated militia made up of the ordinary folks of the state to defend the liberty that the state has now entrusted to the care of professional military forces. But arguing that the individual liberty to bear arms is not what the second amendment meant to protect is pointless because it clearly is what it meant to protect - and for good reason at that point in history. The issue now is not about reinterpreting the second amendment but about whether it should be retained or thrown out altogether. And the US seems to have elevated a 200 hundred year old 'amendment' to the agreed social rights of that society at that time to the status of a divine and eternally inviolable declaration of individual human liberty. Obviously, that's going to have to change at some point. But I don't see how fiddling around with the imagined intent of a prefatory phrase composed against a 2 centuries old socio-political backdrop is going to cut the mustard. That phrase was about their world, not ours.

The primary means by which the Second Amendment was intended to protect individual liberty was by obviating the need for a large standing army-feared to be a danger to liberty at the time-by relying on the organized militia of the states instead. There was no thought at the time of individuals resisting state or federal government by force of arms. The opposite was the case: when Western Pennsylvania farmers resisted a Federal tax on Whiskey, Washington called up 15,000 state militia into federal service and crushed the “revolt.”

 

[Walter Bailey]

"Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training."
source
​

So the Second Amendment was drafted to insure such a militia could be created.

.

Actually they were paid in many cases. And you’re leaving out one crucial fact: these weren’t individuals acting on their own. They were conscripts enrolled for part time service under state government control and officers who held state commissions. They were organized by the state into companies, regiments and batteries...

 

[Walter Bailey]

You make some good points, although why would there need to be a separate amendment which allows the government to arm its own military force? It's like saying that soldiers have a right to wear uniforms. Or that members of the swimming team have a right to swim. It's implied in the job title and would include whatever standard equipment is needed.

Even without the Second Amendment, the government would still have the prerogative to arm (or even draft) individuals for the purpose of military service. An actual amendment is not required to carry out this function, so why would there be any amendment at all related to the ownership of firearms?

Because the government wasn’t providing all the arms. According to the 1792 militia act, the militiamen had to purchase their own small arms for militia service. Sometimes the states provided artillery pieces, but generally the militia offered the new nation a low cost option-a government force that was privately equipped, hence the need to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[Walter Bailey]

Actually Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller most thoroughly examines the phrase "to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment:

“To keep and bear Arms”​

Although the Court’s discussion of these words treats them as two “phrases”--as if they read “to keep” and “to bear”--they describe a unitary right: to possess arms if needed for military purposes and to use them in conjunction with military activities.

As a threshold matter, it is worth pausing to note an oddity in the Court’s interpretation of “to keep and bear arms.” Unlike the Court of Appeals, the Court does not read that phrase to create a right to possess arms for “lawful, private purposes.” Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 382 (CADC 2007). Instead, the Court limits the Amendment’s protection to the right “to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Ante, at 19. No party or amicus urged this interpretation; the Court appears to have fashioned it out of whole cloth. But although this novel limitation lacks support in the text of the Amendment, the Amendment’s text doesjustify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia.

The term “bear arms” is a familiar idiom; when used unadorned by any additional words, its meaning is “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.” 1 Oxford English Dictionary 634 (2d ed. 1989). It is derived from the Latin arma ferre, which, translated literally, means “to bear [ferre] war equipment [arma].” Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 19. One 18th-century dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence,” 1 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of theEnglish Language(1755), and another contemporaneous source explained that “[ b ]y arms, we understand those instruments of offence generally made use of in war; such as firearms, swords, & c. By weapons, we more particularly mean instruments of other kinds (exclusive of fire-arms), made use of as offensive, on special occasions.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794).8 Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves,” as was done in the Pennsylvania and Vermont Declarations of Rights. The unmodified use of “bear arms,” by contrast, refers most naturally to a military purpose, as evidenced by its use in literally dozens of contemporary texts.9 The absence of any reference to civilian uses of weapons tailors the text of the Amendment to the purpose identified in its preamble.10 But when discussing these words, the Court simply ignores the preamble.

The Court argues that a “qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass.” Ante, at 15. But this fundamentally fails to grasp the point. The stand-alone phrase “bear arms” most naturally conveys a military meaning unless the addition of a qualifying phrase signals that a different meaning is intended. When, as in this case, there is no such qualifier, the most natural meaning is the military one; and, in the absence of any qualifier, it is all the more appropriate to look to the preamble to confirm the natural meaning of the text.11 The Court’s objection is particularly puzzling in light of its own contention that the addition of the modifier “against” changes the meaning of “bear arms.” Compare ante, at 10 (defining “bear arms” to mean “carrying [a weapon] for a particular purpose—confrontation”), with ante, at 12 (“The phrase ‘bear Arms’ also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight or to wage war. But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition ‘against.’ ” (citations and some internal quotation marks omitted)).​

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Heller decision wallows in ignorance of history. Scalia would not have been able to dismiss the prefatory clause as meaningless without ignoring the entire history of the standing militia as a government force from the colonization of America through the Civil War.

 

[Walter Bailey]

It is filled by the National Guard of each state.

.

The guard is different from its standing militia predecessor in two key ways that set it radically apart from the original intent of the Second Amendment: it is an all volunteer force, unlike the conscripted militia and it is all government armed, unlike the largely privately armed state militias.