Constitutional conflict?

[MarkCO]

So, in Heller v. D.C., the SC ruled that a militia "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense". All prior SC rulings also referred to the militia as "male" and " having arms that could "reasonably be used" to defend our country. But now, we have a Pentagon edict that is at odds with the traditional model of our military in that it now wants to include women in the military model. Make anyone else question the motives or timing?

[theGinsue]

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're asking.

Women have been in most military roles, barring those specifically designated as "combat" roles, for a couple of decades +. I'd say that given the military's recent inclusion/acceptance of women into combat roles, it only opens up the acceptance of women into the informal "militia" status by legal definition. In my opinion (we all know I'm a computer geek, not a student of law), there is a de facto expansion of the SCOTUS decision and interpretation of the Second to officially cover women (even if it wasn't originally considered by our Founding Fathers). Rights protected by the Constitution can always be expanded or enhanced but can not be (are NEVER supposed to be) reduced.

My question regarding the recent DoD acceptance of women in combat roles is will they now be required to register for Selective Service at 18 as males are required to do?

[Tinelement]

So, in Heller v. D.C., the SC ruled that a militia "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense". All prior SC rulings also referred to the militia as "male" and " having arms that could "reasonably be used" to defend our country. But now, we have a Pentagon edict that is at odds with the traditional model of our military in that it now wants to include women in the military model. Make anyone else question the motives or timing?

Only answer the best I can....

I won't send my wife in.

[cstone]

Women have been present and some have even fought in combat long before the Pentagon or liberals began demanding equal rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Pitcher

Change one or two justices on the SCOTUS and Heller wouldn't have even been heard by the court.

I'm thinking peaceful, non-compliance may be in my future. [Beer]

[Fentonite]

I could see them trying to use this as an example of why the constitution and 2nd ammendment are no longer "relevant". They'll stand on the graves of children give a speech, why wouldn't they use this?

[sniper7]

yep, push the women vote and say they can't own guns because they weren't specifically mentioned. I wonder if any of the womens rights movement laws/rulings touched on this.

[Great-Kazoo]

IMHO The Women in Combat announcement was done as more of a distraction, regarding potential loss of GUN Control support.



SQUIRREL! ! ! !

[asmo]

Militia != Military

As for women and guns, laws requiring “householders” (whether or not they were in the militia) to have arms were common, and these usually included a woman who was the head of the house (e.g., a widow).

[spqrzilla]

So, in Heller v. D.C., the SC ruled that a militia "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense". All prior SC rulings also referred to the militia as "male" and " having arms that could "reasonably be used" to defend our country. But now, we have a Pentagon edict that is at odds with the traditional model of our military in that it now wants to include women in the military model. Make anyone else question the motives or timing?
Your observation makes no sense to me at all.

[sellersm]

Yes, I see your point: it's conceivable that the Pentagon edict could be used by the SC, in the future, to prove that the militia rulings are now invalid because "male" (as used in their rulings) does not equate to "female" (which is now the current, inclusive militia definition). I think in order for this to occur, there would have to be a clear ruling on the definition of "militia" in which they tie it directly to "combat personnel", because, as has been mentioned, there are already females serving in the military. However, they are not currently in active combat, front-line-type roles.

In other words, anything they can do to throw out the SC support of the 2A, they will indeed do.

[asmo]

I think in order for this to occur, there would have to be a clear ruling on the definition of "militia" in which they tie it directly to "combat personnel", because, as has been mentioned, there are already females serving in the military.

Do you people even read? The Militia (the one in the Constitution -- e.g. the un-organized militia) has NOTHING to do with the military (e.g. the standing army or the organized militia) in any way shape or form.