The original bill: "That all militia forces now organized or in service in either of the States of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, be forthwith "disarmed" and disbanded, and that the further organization, arming, or calling into service of said militia forces, or any part thereof, is hereby prohibited under circumstances whatever until the same shall be authorized by Congress."

The word "disarmed" became a problem because it was in conflict with the 2nd Amendments rights of individuals to own arms so was struck from the bill. The bill passed over the "veto" of President Andrew Johnson.

Seems that the CSA come close to losing all rights to own and bear arms, maybe that is why the South in particular is so sensitive to gun legislation and generally elects pro-gun officials. I guess the Democrats will never get it.

Looks like unless something has changed, that there can be no organized militias in these states ?.  Have fun researching this "Knowledge is Power"

raf,

I would guess the impetus would be the War of Northern Aggression, 1861-1865.

Semper Fi

I suspect that after the civil war they wanted to ensure that there could be no more organized resistance (Militias) to start it up again. Just speculation, but the argument may have been if we are once again the "United States" then all states would fall under the Constitution and not have a separate one for the Southern States that fought against the north ????? Would be nice to find a record of the original arguments for and against. But to override the president's veto, it must have been heated....

The original Confederate Constitution goes on display one day a year at the University of Georgia in Athens GA.  It had parts about having militia as opposed to a standing army for the confederacy.  Interesting document actually.  It really had more to do with gun rights and militia than slavery.  Anything to do with slavery was in the property section and was fairly limited compared to the rest of the document!  But it would be a good reason why southerners dont like gun laws!!

[beer]

Immediately after the War for Southern Independence, the Southern States were not members of the Union in a Constitutional Sense so the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to them... this condition lasted until the ratification of the 14th Amendment which the Southern states were coerced into signing in order to reobtain representation in Congress and the Senate...

RAF... when a Federal law conflicts with a state law... guess which law wins.  Considering that the federal law is constitutional that is...

Yes... the 2nd Amendment, for obvious "political" reasons was not affected by the 14th Amendment... had it been so, the RKBA would have clearly been protected from state infringement.

As for whether or not a total state ban would succeed Constitutionally, we don;t know yet as the Supreme Court is yet to rule on such a matter... G-d willing, the Supreme Court will rule in our favor when this happens.  With increasing state restrictions, it is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court is forced to rule on just such a law...

They did uphold the Illinios hand-gun ban though... go figure....

Now, I know somebody is going to post a message with a flame saying that "our rights are guaranteed and what the hell am I saying with all this Supreme Court nonsense you chicken-shit liberal!"  WEll, before somebody does, let me first say that I'm far far from being liberal or socialist and second, sadly, we don't interpret the Constitution, the Supreme Court does... that issue is another fight we must keep up altogether...  Maybe i am a bit paranoid though...but sometimes guys around here attack like a pack of wild dogs...hehe

Found this: Senator Thomas A. Hendricks D-Ind. thought the bill would violate the Second Amendment by disarming not only the State militias, but also individuals. "If this infringes the right of the people to bear arms we have no authority to adopt it......" A Senator Wilson then struck the word "disarmed" from the bill.......

Where's our 2nd Amendment Scholars, is this a precedent ?

Legislative history DOES NOT set precedent...

When interpreting the meaning of a statute, legislative intent will be considered when the clear and plain meaning of the statutory language is uncertain.

This is curious, awhile back on this site there was a discussion concerning militias. Out of curosity I looked up Louisiana statutes concerning this. If I remember right, Louisiana by law CANNOT have "organzied militias". I wonder if this is from 1866 ??? I believe I mentioned this on one of the topics. Been a few months. But to clarify a few things. I am not a lawyer, I do not work for the BATF and I was born in Montana. You know Montana, Militias, Arian Nation, Survivalists, Uni-Bomber, etc. and "Where Gun Control, Means a Steady Hand".

Hmmm. well Bat21 you are correct,thier is No provsion in The Louisiana Consitution,
 [center][b]LOUISIANA
[No Militia Definition][/b][/center]

[b]Art. 1 - Sec. 11 - The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.[/b]


[center][b] The Constitution for the united States of America is the Supreme Law of the land.  It recognizes the Militia as an already existing force outside the control of the federal government but allows for the Congress to call forth the Militia for only three very specific occurrences.  The Militia cannot be called up to perform any other acts outside of the three specifically stated in the Constitution. The Militia cannot be called upon to do anything un-Constitutional, illegal, or unlawful.  Indeed, Militia commanders must refuse any un-Constitutional, illegal, or unlawful order.  The Constitution for the united States of America states in Article 1, Section 8:  

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...."[/b][/center]

[center][b]State Constitutions which do NOT define "militia"
(refer to state statutes)

Alabama   Maryland   New York  Alaska   Massachusetts   North Carolina
California   Michigan   Oklahoma  Connecticut   Minnesota  Oregon  Delaware   Missouri
Rhode Island  Georgia   Montana   Tennessee  Hawaii   Nebraska   Texas   Nevada
 West Virginia  Indiana   New Hampshire   Wisconsin  Louisiana   New Jersey   Wyoming
[/b][/center]
[center][b]State Constitutions which DO define "militia"

Arizona   New Mexico  Arkansas   North Dakota  Colorado   Ohio  Florida   Pennsylvania
Idaho   South Carolina  Illinois  Iowa   South Dakota  Kansas   Utah  Kentucky   Vermont
Maine   Virginia  Mississippi   Washington[/b][/center]

If you would like to read more on the subject try this link
[url]http://williamcooper.com/militial.htm [/url]

Actually, Democrats [i]owned[/i] the South until the 1970's.