Discussion pertaining to the militia act of 1792

https://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of 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, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

A particular point regarding the first paragraph of the original militia act of the united states, regarding equipment individuals were expected to muster when called upon. Twenty four cartridges of ammunition appropriate for use in their musket or rifle.

In the time period during which the original militia act was written, a skilled individual could load and fire three aimed shots per minute. Twenty four rounds of ammunition in this time period would amounted to enough ammunition to allow for eight minutes of continual, uninterrupted fire.

Essentially the founding fathers who wrote the militia act were mandating that each individual possessed a sufficient quantity of ammunition to enable them to engage in eight continuous minutes worth of uninterrupted fire if necessary.

One could essentially argue the first militia act of the united states actually mandates the ownership of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

 

Interesting argument - simple and concise.

Fact of the matter is, for the The People to form into a well-regulated militia and assist/resist the military as necessary, they need access to weapons suitable for the purpose. 10-rd magazines in their ARs don't meet the standards of 1960, much less 2018.

 

That fallacy only "works" as long as ALL magazines have a LIMITATION that prevents firing at a rate greater than 3 rounds a minute.

 

This completely ignores the fact modern combat infantry greatly exceeds 3rds/minute - sustained, aimed fire is 1rd/1-2sec
Were you unaware of this or did you choose to be wrong?

 

It sounds pretty clear that this is all you are allowed to have:

provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder;

 

We should probably look at the printing press regulations for that time too, this internet thing is way out of bounds to the original aspects of freedom of the press. Oh wait...

 

I will select Choose to be wrong for 2000, Alex.

 

As I recall, the requirements in the MA 1792 were the minimums. No one would prevent you from bringing extra ammo, a repeating flintlock or learning how to load and fire faster than 3 round per minute.

Edit: "That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four "

Yep, there it is. More ammo is fine.

 

Oh I agree completely

 

That's not what it says

 

Except advances in technology have already been decided by the Supreme Court, which means advancements to firearms apply equally to those of photographs, television, and the internet. The only people who seem to disagree are gun grabbers that want double standards...

 

Then don't quote the militia act....you don't get it both ways

 

It's a daily double!!!

 

Yes the freedom of the press is limited to just the lead type styles they had at that time. I saw my cousin forming lead type for the then Oakland Tribune. So the press is limited to lead type.

 

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

So much for that.

 

Then don't quote the militia act....you don't get it both ways

 

The 1792 Militia act was repealed. Replaced by the Dick Act of 1903.

 

True... but not the point.

 

Then why is it being quoted here. Tell that to the OP. Get em Robert.

 

Funny that you did not go get em and inform them it was replaced.

 

So was the Dick act essentially.

Much of the content of the Dick Act has effectively been repealed through the passage of subsequent modifying legislation such as the Militia Act of 1908, the National Defense Act of 1916, and the National Defense Act of 1920.

 

After more reading on that part of the topic, the 1792 act, turns out that up until the Dick Act that law was very closely followed. It caused major problems for the Union starting in 1861 as to the war against the states. It caused havoc during the War of 1812. It was a lousy law.

It has been booted out by the later Dick Law and that law was being changed up to 1933 that I have found out about.

These jokers who claim we can only own muskets are not honest.

 

You did good until you forgot the changes of 1933.

 

They are fully aware of this.

 

I didn't bring up the militia act in the first place. I think this whole thread is hilarious