At 10:32 PM 10/9/99 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: This is not new turf. In my view you are correct, but the federales have stolen the show through a number of legal shennagans and the refusal of courts to hold them to their constitutional mandates. For an excellent review of this topic, see Brannon P. Denning, Palladium of Liberty? Causes and Consequences of the Federalization of State Militias in the Twentieth Century, http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/denpall.html ----- End of forwarded message from Steve Schear ----- Actualy it's not the same thing at all. As to federalization of state militia's. This should surprise no-one since states can't keep troops of any form, even militia. The Constitution is also clear that there can be only *one* militia and it is a national or federal militia. Even Mr. Denning doesn't seem to catch the paradox because of his use of 'militias' in the plural. It also misses the point that individual rights to own weapons is *not* based on the requirement to have a militia. If the Constitution is taken as a whole the right of the individual to own and bear arms is in addition to both the federal military and militia. Also, his claim that membership in the Militia is universal is faulty as well, membership is voluntary but by no means mandatory as he implies. There are a couple of issues with the current implimentation of the National Guard as well. If it's the militia then there can't be 50 of them organized by state. If they're not the militia then the state funding that goes directly into them is unconstitutional. The reality is that at the federal level there are three military forces; army, navy, and militia. I am unaware of any assaults on federal gun control laws that use this line of reasoning; states are required to protect themselves against invasion or periods of domestic violence not dependant upon federal or even state resources and that this authorizes private ownership of weapons. If you can point to a summary of such a case I'd appreciate it.