# Well regulated militia



## rupol2000 (Jan 30, 2022)

Well regulated militia can be created on the basis of the police. The US police are subordinate to the state and independent of the federals. Armed male can be trained by the police, and participate in police operations as an auxiliary force. This is the shortest way to create a militia.
The constitution says that the creation of a militia *is necessary*.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 30, 2022)

That was 245 years ago.

Justice Scalia ruled on Heller that the only relevant part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So that's where we are today. At least until the next Supreme Court decision.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 30, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> That was 245 years ago.
> 
> Justice Scalia ruled on Heller that the only relevant part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> So that's where we are today. At least until the next Supreme Court decision.


We have a well regulated militia.  It is called the National Guard.


----------



## rupol2000 (Jan 30, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Justice Scalia ruled on Heller that the only relevant part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


This is clearly an unconstitutional decision. Competence must be questioned.


----------



## Darkwind (Jan 30, 2022)

mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
Learn to pronounce

_noun_


a military force that is raised from the *civil population* to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
*all able-bodied civilians* eligible by law for military service


----------



## rupol2000 (Jan 30, 2022)

White 6 said:


> We have a well regulated militia. It is called the National Guard.



It has a subordination to the federals, it is not provided for in the constitution. Most likely they will side with the feds in the event of a conflict.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jan 30, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> mi·li·tia
> /məˈliSHə/
> Learn to pronounce
> 
> ...



Thank you.

So many people try to make the word "militia" into a standing army.    It isn't.    It is citizens picking up their own arms to defend their nation in a time of need.   What kind of lunatic would invade a nation with +400 guns in private citizen's hands.     Hitler and Yamamoto knew that.


----------



## rupol2000 (Jan 30, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> their nation


state


----------



## Maxnovax (Jan 30, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> That was 245 years ago.
> 
> Justice Scalia ruled on Heller that the only relevant part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> So that's where we are today. At least until the next Supreme Court decision.


The  US Constitution specifies we should have no standing military we should only have  Militias


----------



## WinterBorn (Jan 30, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> state



I said what I said.    Nation.

If China were to try and invade CA, armed citizens would be there.   Not just CA residents, but from every state.


----------



## Maxnovax (Jan 30, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> I said what I said.    Nation.
> 
> If China were to try and invade CA, armed citizens would be there.   Not just CA residents, but from every state.


I’m not defending Californians.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jan 30, 2022)

Maxnovax said:


> I’m not defending Californians.



I'm defending the nation.


----------



## Darkwind (Jan 30, 2022)

Maxnovax said:


> I’m not defending Californians.


Then you need to immigrate somewhere else.  California sucks, but they ARE part of America and those of us who swore an oath to defend the Constitution and this country, will do so for EVERY State in the Union.


----------



## Likkmee (Jan 30, 2022)

MS-13,14,15....whateva...have good organizational skills.
Obama can only wish to organize such a community


----------



## Maxnovax (Jan 30, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> I'm defending the nation.


No state that allows an invasion is getting my help.


----------



## Maxnovax (Jan 30, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> Then you need to immigrate somewhere else.  California sucks, but they ARE part of America and those of us who swore an oath to defend the Constitution and this country, will do so for EVERY State in the Union.


I’m like a Confederate soldier.. i’m going rogue


----------



## rupol2000 (Jan 30, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> I said what I said. Nation.


Read the text. The militia stands for the nation only as part of the federal forces, in other cases it defends the rights of the state.


----------



## Darkwind (Jan 30, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Read the text. The militia stands for the nation only as part of the federal forces, in other cases it defends the rights of the state.


Not it does not.


----------



## Maxnovax (Jan 30, 2022)

The only people against militias have a history of being against the United States of America


----------



## White 6 (Jan 30, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> It has a subordination to the federals, it is not provided for in the constitution. Most likely they will side with the feds in the event of a conflict.


No state could afford them on their own, but they spend far more time on state duty than Federal duty and work at the behest of state governors (not title 32 Federal duty) in the event of civil (or uncivil, depending on your point of view) disturbance or state security missions.  I have been on one of these state civil disturbance mission for over a week.  Spooky sh*t, knowing you are facing your fellow citizens.  They are the modern citizen soldier with a lineage back to the militias at the founding of this country, no more, no less.


----------



## rupol2000 (Jan 30, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> Not it does not.


That's what it fucking  says "for the security of a free state"


----------



## WinterBorn (Jan 30, 2022)

Maxnovax said:


> No state that allows an invasion is getting my help.



No state will be invaded BECAUSE we present a united front as the United States of America.


----------



## Maxnovax (Jan 30, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> No state will be invaded BECAUSE we present a united front as the United States of America.


California is a sanctuary state for illegal aliens.. I will not support any state.. I will take up arms with Californians to defeat the enemy who are the Democrats


----------



## WinterBorn (Jan 30, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Read the text. The militia stands for the nation only as part of the federal forces, in other cases it defends the rights of the state.



The whole point of a citizen militia is that it is not controlled by either state or federal military or law enforcement.    It is independent.


----------



## rupol2000 (Jan 30, 2022)

White 6 said:


> No state could afford them on their own, but they spend far more time on state duty than Federal duty and work at the behest of state governors (not title 32 Federal duty) in the event of civil (or uncivil, depending on your point of view) disturbance or state security missions.  I have been on one of these state civil disturbance mission for over a week.  Spooky sh*t, knowing you are facing your fellow citizens.  They are the modern citizen soldier with a lineage back to the militias at the founding of this country, no more, no less.


they must be ready to oppose the feds in case of infringement of state rights.


----------



## Darkwind (Jan 30, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> That's what it fucking  says "for the security of a free state"


Does NOT translate into being agents of the State.  Critical thinking is crucial.  

I'm not sure how it is you cannot see that there are people who love this country and will stand up and defend it and they will need no State authority to do so.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jan 30, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> they must be ready to oppose the feds in case of infringement of state rights.



Yes.   But not under the control of the state.


----------



## rupol2000 (Jan 30, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> The whole point of a citizen militia is that it is not controlled by either state or federal military or law enforcement. It is independent.


Robbers? Just don't say anything else


----------



## White 6 (Jan 30, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> Yes.   But not under the control of the state.


Roger that.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jan 30, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Robbers? Just don't say anything else



Not robbers at all.     Citizens protecting themselves and their nation.


----------



## rupol2000 (Jan 30, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> Not robbers at all.     Citizens protecting themselves and their nation.


they are obligated to defend the state by decision of the people of the state or an authorized


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jan 30, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> It is citizens picking up their own arms to defend their nation in a time of need.


Like Scalia, many choose to simply ignore the "well regulated" part. However, The Founders never indicated any of it being optional. To the contrary, they declared it "necessary" and yes, "to the security of a free state" - meaning their particular State, not necessarily "their nation". They were indeed opposed to having a standing army. Only by allowing the individual States to worry about protecting the entire Union (in times of peace, i.e. when there would be no standing army) could they get enough agreement to have the document signed in the first place.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jan 30, 2022)

> Definition of _standing army_​
> *: *a *permanent* army of paid soldiers


----------



## Darkwind (Jan 30, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Like Scalia, many choose to simply ignore the "well regulated" part. However, The Founders never indicated any of it being optional. To the contrary, they declared it "necessary" and yes, "to the security of a free state" - meaning their particular State, not necessarily "their nation". They were indeed opposed to having a standing army. Only by allowing the individual States to worry about protecting the entire Union (in times of peace, i.e. when there would be no standing army) could they get enough agreement to have the document signed in the first place.


"Well Regulated", of course; means in good working order.


----------



## Who_Me? (Jan 30, 2022)

The Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers are not a well regulated militia.  They are a bunch of wack jobs with guns.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jan 30, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> "Well Regulated", of course; means in good working order.


Actually,


> In 1789, a militia was not a self-appointed force of citizens in camo running around in the woods by themselves.  Militias would be raised by each state government, their loyalty and devotion to the new American republic was assured by the fact that they would be defending their families, their neighbors, and their homes.  Because they might someday have to operate as a combined force, the militias were to be “well-regulated”—*meaning trained to standards set by the federal government.*


All one need do to appreciate the difference is think about who got to declare any particular militia "well regulated" or not? Certainly not the individual members. So who?


----------



## Darkwind (Jan 30, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Actually,
> 
> All one need do to appreciate the difference is think about who got to declare any particular militia "well regulated" or not? Certainly not the individual members. So who?


Actually, not the Federal Government, as there wasn't one that had been in existence long enough to set that kind of standard.

The militia in those days was often commanded by ex-Regular Army guys.  Sometimes officers, sometimes not.  

But they all adhered to the concept of "Well Regulated" meaning in good working order as defined by standing Armies all through the world of that time.

At no time were they then, or are they now, under the auspice of any government.

A valid point, however.  Thanks.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 30, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Roger that.
> View attachment 594938


You're ignorant


----------



## White 6 (Jan 30, 2022)

bear513 said:


> You're ignorant
> 
> 
> View attachment 595017


You are ignorant.  Michigan Militia is a bunch of lawless hoods.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 30, 2022)

White 6 said:


> You are ignorant.  Michigan Militia is a bunch of lawless hoods.


Tell them that punk


----------



## White 6 (Jan 30, 2022)

bear513 said:


> Tell them that punk


Got your punk, hanging.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 30, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> It has a subordination to the federals, it is not provided for in the constitution. Most likely they will side with the feds in the event of a conflict.


That's your hope.

Sucks to be you


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 30, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Read the text. The militia stands for the nation only as part of the federal forces, in other cases it defends the rights of the state.


Stop posting!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 30, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Got your punk, hanging.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 30, 2022)

bear513 said:


> View attachment 595030
> 
> 
> View attachment 595031
> ...


What are trying say or prove to me.  I know they are out there.  I just don't like em.  I was briefed on militia asshole groups starting all the way back to the 80s, as part of subversive groups along with KKK in the three state area.  I was a draft pick back in the late 90s after military retirement and then apparently again around 2012, but I think they got the message pretty clear, to fk off.  Knowing of me and that I knew the flunky politico they had feel me out and that people disappear in the river bottom around their city.  Somebody that knew me back when, me let me know, nobody would be contacting or bothering me again, and they haven't.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jan 30, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> This is clearly an unconstitutional decision. Competence must be questioned.


It's the right decision.  There's no getting around the, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", part.  Nothing in the end Amendment says anything about gun owners being members of the militia.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jan 30, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Well regulated militia can be created on the basis of the police. The US police are subordinate to the state and independent of the federals. Armed male can be trained by the police, and participate in police operations as an auxiliary force. This is the shortest way to create a militia.
> The constitution says that the creation of a militia *is necessary*.
> View attachment 594923



It was also written in a different age.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jan 30, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> It was also written in a different age.


Are you saying the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the internet, or television.  Are telephone conversations excluded from 4th Amendment protections?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jan 30, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> Actually, not the Federal Government, as there wasn't one that had been in existence long enough to set that kind of standard.
> 
> The militia in those days was often commanded by ex-Regular Army guys.  Sometimes officers, sometimes not.
> 
> ...


Good luck with those beliefs, but the National Guard is the only official militia remaining, if any. The Militias were set up to be State sponsored and regulated, but the Guard is now a designated branch of the Air Force. Part of the military or "standing army" despite the clear intent of the Founders. The Governors of each State control their Guard's civil presence and deployments until or unless they're called to national service in which case the President assumes their command as with all branches of the military.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jan 30, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Are you saying the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the internet, or television.  Are telephone conversations excluded from 4th Amendment protections?



No. I'm saying the part that says a militia is necessary to the security of a free state is outdated. This part isn't even law. There doesn't have to legally be a militia.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 31, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Well regulated militia can be created on the basis of the police. The US police are subordinate to the state and independent of the federals. Armed male can be trained by the police, and participate in police operations as an auxiliary force. This is the shortest way to create a militia.
> The constitution says that the creation of a militia *is necessary*.
> View attachment 594923


Wrong.









						PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 31, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> The Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers are not a well regulated militia.  They are a bunch of wack jobs with guns.


Correct.

Armed citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent authorization from the state or Federal government.

Absent such authorization, they’re nothing but a lawless gang of armed thugs.


----------



## rupol2000 (Jan 31, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> It's the right decision.  There's no getting around the, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", part.  Nothing in the end Amendment says anything about gun owners being members of the militia.


It is said because the possession of weapons there is mentioned strictly in the context of militia law, in one sentence. It doesn't even say anything about personal protection.


----------



## rupol2000 (Jan 31, 2022)

It is, in fact, a leftist scam. By decoupling the right to own a gun from the right to the state militia, they are trying to deprive the state of the right to the militia.
Next step they will tie the police to the federal department.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 31, 2022)

We can quibble about the word 'militia" but the 2nd Amendment has been upheld by half a dozen Supreme Court decisions. There was a time not long ago when Presidents were members of the NRA and the military supported the civilian population knowing the basics of firearm use and it came in handy when the U.S. drafted the "greatest generation". Today the transgender left is in charge and the NRA is the enemy while we protect the "rights" of confused men in dresses to use the ladies room.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jan 31, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> It is said because the possession of weapons there is mentioned strictly in the context of militia law, in one sentence. It doesn't even say anything about personal protection.


It means that because there will be a militia to protect the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists to protect themselves from tyranny; tyrannical government, or another domestic group trying to unconstitutionally impose it's will on the people.


----------



## rupol2000 (Jan 31, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> It means that because there will be a militia to protect the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists to protect themselves from tyranny; tyrannical government, or another domestic group trying to unconstitutionally impose it's will on the people.


It's pretty much the same as what I'm talking about. Only this militia should be organized, someone should be engaged in this.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jan 31, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> It's pretty much the same as what I'm talking about. Only this militia should be organized, someone should be engaged in this.



Well you keep saying that to yourself.    I'll keep following the laws under the US Constitution.     And I will enjoy shooting whenever I get the chance.   Plus I enjoy the security of knowing I can defend my home.


----------



## rupol2000 (Jan 31, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> Well you keep saying that to yourself.    I'll keep following the laws under the US Constitution.     And I will enjoy shooting whenever I get the chance.   Plus I enjoy the security of knowing I can defend my home.


I'm not against private gun ownership, but it should be organized and connected to the militia. Women should not own weapons.

Otherwise, it will lead to riots, provocations, and eventually this right will be taken away.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jan 31, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> I'm not against private gun ownership, but it should be organized and connected to the militia. Women should not own weapons.
> 
> Otherwise, it will lead to riots, provocations, and eventually this right will be taken away.



The fact that you think women should not own weapons shows your ignorance and personal bias.    My girlfriend owns 2 revolvers.   The is a responsible gun owner and an excellent shot.   I would suggest you not try to take them away from her.

No, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is not contingent on military or militia service.   So what you think it should be, and what actual constitutional scholars (with the authority) say it is are two different things.    Guess which one wins.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jan 31, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> It's pretty much the same as what I'm talking about. Only this militia should be organized, someone should be engaged in this.


The militia that the 2A refers to is the government militia, not the people.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 1, 2022)

Missouri State Defense Force - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Grumblenuts (Feb 2, 2022)

> Fearing violence from rioting strikers and anti-war protesters, the state of Missouri created the Missouri Home Guard in 1917


OMG, how did Missouri ever survive without such gangs of well armed, next-door neighbor haters!  
Up the fascism, yay! Liberty? Safety first! No questions allowed without first being shot then stomped upon, yay!


> The Capitol Police department released a brief three-sentence statement on the continued National Guard support, thanking the Guard, but omitting any reason as to why they were needed. Acting Chief Pittman has previously acknowledged in congressional testimony that 35 Capitol Police officers were under investigation for “code of conduct” violations related to January 6, with six of those suspended for their actions. The department has not released any further information concerning the cozy relationship between the police and the pro-Trump fascists.







wsws


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 3, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> That was 245 years ago.
> 
> Justice Scalia ruled on Heller that the only relevant part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> So that's where we are today. At least until the next Supreme Court decision.


But that was 245 years ago.  The military take care of it now. 
Try Again.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 9, 2022)

White 6 said:


> We have a well regulated militia.  It is called the National Guard.


Wrong.  The National Guard is called by the DOD to fight in global wars on foreign lands. Nothing in the Constitution permits anyone other than Congress to call up the National Guard and they only for a very limited set of assignments related to fighting insurrection, invasion, and enforcing the law.  The National Guard is NOT the militia.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 9, 2022)

Maxnovax said:


> The  US Constitution specifies we should have no standing military we should only have  Militias


That's not true.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 9, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> Then you need to immigrate somewhere else.  California sucks, but they ARE part of America and those of us who swore an oath to defend the Constitution and this country, will do so for EVERY State in the Union.


Fighting alongside Californians would be in order to keep the enemy from getting east of California.  I might fight to keep Californians from dying but only because they're helpful in defending parts East.  More likely, though, California would surrender and we'd be fighting Californians along with whichever WestPac nations we were fighting.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 9, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Good luck with those beliefs, but the National Guard is the only official militia remaining, if any. The Militias were set up to be State sponsored and regulated, but the Guard is now a designated branch of the Air Force. Part of the military or "standing army" despite the clear intent of the Founders. The Governors of each State control their Guard's civil presence and deployments until or unless they're called to national service in which case the President assumes their command as with all branches of the military.


Of course there's a militia: every able-bodied man from 16 to 60.  That the States and Congress are failing in their responsibility to provide regulation does not mean that the militia doesn't exist in exactly the way it did in 1788.


----------



## White 6 (Feb 9, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Wrong.  The National Guard is called by the DOD to fight in global wars on foreign lands. Nothing in the Constitution permits anyone other than Congress to call up the National Guard and they only for a very limited set of assignments related to fighting insurrection, invasion, and enforcing the law.  The National Guard is NOT the militia.


No.  Their lineage goes back and is still directly connected to the citizen soldier of the revolutionary days, state and local militias that would drop what they were doing in their civilian life to support their community, state and (yes) the country when under attack and they still support their communities today.  As we type, there are Texas National Guard supporting a state mission, chosen by their Governor, directed by their Adjutant General, paid by state funding on their border.  I have been on a state mission in a civil disturbance situation, again, called up by the Governor on a state funded mission.  They are well regulated, as they are trained for these missions, have the equipment, and unified military command structure to carry out these missions.  At purely local level down to unit level, commanders have at times taken it upon themselves to call in small groups to man equipment and provide support in situations such as local flooding events, saving lives because they type of equipment (in terms of high ground clearance heavy haulers with off-road capabilities for example) they have at their command and orderly military discipline of their trained people to operate, placed them in a position to do things in support beyond the capabilities of other local agencies before state can react, in sort of a do and get authorization and funding to pay, later kind of thing, at unit commander risk until that authorization comes down, but as it happens, coordination for those arrangements are being take upstream to higher organization command at to state level.  To this day, I have never see a commander hung out to dry, as support in peacetime is the core value of The Guard down through the years.


----------



## BlackSand (Feb 9, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> mi·li·tia
> /məˈliSHə/
> Learn to pronounce
> 
> ...


,

And ...

Any state or local government can write laws that form, arm and regulate a militia without violating the Constitution.
Any absence of such a law does not grant the Federal Government the power to infringe upon the citizen's Rights.

.​


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

White 6 said:


> No.  Their lineage goes back and is still directly connected to the citizen soldier of the revolutionary days, state and local militias that would drop what they were doing in their civilian life to support their community, state and (yes) the country when under attack and they still support their communities today.  As we type, there are Texas National Guard supporting a state mission, chosen by their Governor, directed by their Adjutant General, paid by state funding on their border.  I have been on a state mission in a civil disturbance situation, again, called up by the Governor on a state funded mission.  They are well regulated, as they are trained for these missions, have the equipment, and unified military command structure to carry out these missions.  At purely local level down to unit level, commanders have at times taken it upon themselves to call in small groups to man equipment and provide support in situations such as local flooding events, saving lives because they type of equipment (in terms of high ground clearance heavy haulers with off-road capabilities for example) they have at their command and orderly military discipline of their trained people to operate, placed them in a position to do things in support beyond the capabilities of other local agencies before state can react, in sort of a do and get authorization and funding to pay, later kind of thing, at unit commander risk until that authorization comes down, but as it happens, coordination for those arrangements are being take upstream to higher organization command at to state level.  To this day, I have never see a commander hung out to dry, as support in peacetime is the core value of The Guard down through the years.



That the National Guard is performing a State mission does not make them the constitutional militia.  The "lineage" means nothing if they're used outside the constitutional purpose but you can't prove that lineage.

The militia CAN NOT be deployed on foreign soil.  The militia can only be called up BY CONGRESS according to the Constitution:
​*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;*​
What part of the power of Congress to use the State Militias in federal service allows them to be sent to foreign lands?  Which part of the Constitution allows the Militias to be perpetually assigned to the Department of Defense for fighting foreign wars?

The National Guard is NOT the militia; it is part of the standing army.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

White 6 said:


> We have a well regulated militia.  It is called the National Guard.


That is incorrect.  The National Guard is part of a standing army.  That makes them the opposite of a militia.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Well regulated militia can be created on the basis of the police. The US police are subordinate to the state and independent of the federals. Armed male can be trained by the police, and participate in police operations as an auxiliary force. This is the shortest way to create a militia.


Not a bad idea.  Remember also that militiamen have the right to have things like grenades and full-auto weapons.  Part of their job is repelling foreign invasions.




rupol2000 said:


> It is said because the possession of weapons there is mentioned strictly in the context of militia law, in one sentence. It doesn't even say anything about personal protection.


It doesn't have to say anything about it.  The right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns for the private defense of their homes, and the Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Like Scalia, many choose to simply ignore the "well regulated" part.


The term well regulated meant that the militia had trained sufficiently enough that they could fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.




Grumblenuts said:


> All one need do to appreciate the difference is think about who got to declare any particular militia "well regulated" or not? Certainly not the individual members. So who?


Pretty much anyone who observed them go through exercises would be able to tell if they were capable of acting as a single coherent unit or not.




Grumblenuts said:


> Good luck with those beliefs, but the National Guard is the only official militia remaining, if any. The Militias were set up to be State sponsored and regulated, but the Guard is now a designated branch of the Air Force. Part of the military or "standing army" despite the clear intent of the Founders. The Governors of each State control their Guard's civil presence and deployments until or unless they're called to national service in which case the President assumes their command as with all branches of the military.


The fact that the National Guard are part of a standing army means that they are not the militia.

Presently there is no militia, which violates the Second Amendment's requirement that there be one.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.


That is incorrect.  The first part of the Second Amendment is pretty clear about saying that a militia is necessary.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Armed citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent authorization from the state or Federal government.


Sure they can.  Freedom of Speech.  Freedom of Association.

Their declaration may mean nothing, just as it would mean nothing if I declared myself to be "Emperor of the Andromeda Galaxy".  But they (and I) are certainly allowed to make such empty declarations.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Absent such authorization, they’re nothing but a lawless gang of armed thugs.


Not if they make sure to always follow the law.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Pretty much anyone who observed them go through exercises would be able to tell if they were capable of acting as a single coherent unit or not.


Point being someone had to do it, whereas no one need now observe Joe Blow doing anything thanks to Scalia's judicial activists.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Presently there is no militia, which violates the Second Amendment's requirement that there be one.


Really? It certainly suggests their necessity, but doesn't require them.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Point being someone had to do it, whereas no one need now observe Joe Blow doing anything thanks to Scalia's judicial activists.


The reason why no one can observe militia exercises is because there is no militia presently.  The Heller ruling is about private home defense, not about the militia.

Upholding the Constitution is hardly judicial activism.




Grumblenuts said:


> Really? It certainly suggests their necessity, but doesn't require them.


Declaring that something is necessary is requiring it.


----------



## White 6 (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  The National Guard is part of a standing army.  That makes them the opposite of a militia.


Not unless on title 32 activation.  Other than that, under state control.  That is why it takes the Governor to activate for use in riots inside the state, or in times of other state emergency.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Declaring that something is necessary is requiring it.


Fine, then the 2nd states militias are required for what purpose now? For the security of a free State. Does it say all States must be "secure" or "free"? No. Does is say all adult white, males must arm themselves in case they're needed by their State's militia? No. So what is the point? *Given* a well regulated State militia, *given* such militias are "required" for the purposes already described,* then*  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Point being "shall be infringed" *given* those two caveats (and only those two caveats). Otherwise, such as *given *"there is no militia presently" -- "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," may "be infringed."


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Not unless on title 32 activation.  Other than that, under state control.  That is why it takes the Governor to activate for use in riots inside the state, or in times of other state emergency.


Guardsmen swear an oath joining the US Army when they become Guardsmen.

The possibility of federal service overseas is another reason why the National Guard are not the militia.  The Constitution limits the federal role of the militia to enforcing the law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion.  None of those involve service outside US borders.

Also, militiamen have the right to take their weapons home with them.  Guardsmen leave their weapons locked up on base when they go home.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Fine, then the 2nd states militias are required for what purpose now? For the security of a free State.


Yes.




Grumblenuts said:


> Does it say all States must be "secure" or "free"? No.


I think it kind of does.




Grumblenuts said:


> Does is say all adult white, males must arm themselves in case they're needed by their State's militia? No.


Correct.  But it does protect their right to arm themselves if they so choose.




Grumblenuts said:


> So what is the point? *Given* a well regulated State militia, *given* such militias are "required" for the purposes already described,* then*  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


That is incorrect.  "Given" is not part of the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The point is:

a) to require the government to always have a militia, and

b) to forbid infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.




Grumblenuts said:


> Point being "shall be infringed" *given* those two caveats (and only those two caveats). Otherwise, such as *given *"there is no militia presently" -- "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," may "be infringed."


That is incorrect.  There are no caveats.  The Second Amendment forbids infringing the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## White 6 (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Guardsmen swear an oath joining the US Army when they become Guardsmen.
> 
> The possibility of federal service overseas is another reason why the National Guard are not the militia.  The Constitution limits the federal role of the militia to enforcing the law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion.  None of those involve service outside US borders.
> 
> Also, militiamen have the right to take their weapons home with them.  Guardsmen leave their weapons locked up on base when they go home.


Not exactly but close.  The enlisted take an oath to support and defend against all, to The constitution, to follow the orders of the President and the Officers appointed above them in accordance with UCMJ.
The Officers take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, to bear true faith and allegiance and to properly discharge the duties of their office

They don't swear an oath to the US Army.  Both are the same oath as the Army.
Trust me.  You don't want guardsmen taking their weapons home, running around the woods and streets on their own practicing with the kind of firepower they have on duty.   I have seen local militia wannabes.  You don't really want them running around practicing with theirs either.  What I saw was certainly not what anybody would call well regulated.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 17, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Not exactly but close.  The enlisted take an oath to support and defend against all, to The constitution, to follow the orders of the President and the Officers appointed above them in accordance with UCMJ.
> The Officers take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, to bear true faith and allegiance and to properly discharge the duties of their office
> 
> They don't swear an oath to the US Army.  Both are the same oath as the Army.


When they swear the same oath that people swear when they join the Army, they are joining the Army.




White 6 said:


> Trust me.  You don't want guardsmen taking their weapons home, running around the woods and streets on their own practicing with the kind of firepower they have on duty.   I have seen local militia wannabes.  You don't really want them running around practicing with theirs either.  What I saw was certainly not what anybody would call well regulated.


Presumably they would be practicing at a firing range that was equipped to handle whatever they were practicing with.

But the Second Amendment is clear: Militiamen have the right to *keep* and bear arms.


----------



## White 6 (Mar 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> When they swear the same oath that people swear when they join the Army, they are joining the Army.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't presume.  The militia guy weren't when they were recruiting me.  They were shooting with mac10s at quarter pound sticks of TNT, while drinking bear between firing orders and swaggering around fully loaded with their hardware hanging out.  Needless to say, they did not get the benefit of my training.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 17, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Not unless on title 32 activation.  Other than that, under state control.  That is why it takes the Governor to activate for use in riots inside the state, or in times of other state emergency.



The Dick Act / National Guard authorization is written under clause 12; _to raise and support armies_, not the militia clauses #15 & 16.  The National Guard fits every hated quality of a goddamn standing army; it is not "militia" in any constitutional context.

You should read _*Perpich v Dept of Defense. *_It explains the legal extent of what residual authority governors retained, after having their milita powers stolen.

That the governors had their state militia powers extinguished, forced Congress to give the states lovely parting gifts called "State Defensive Forces", a hinky carve-out to allow states to keep troops they are forbidden to have by the Constitution and that no legal structure exists anymore to call up, organize, train or deploy citizens as militia,


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Not exactly but close.  The enlisted take an oath to support and defend against all, to The constitution, to follow the orders of the President and the Officers appointed above them in accordance with UCMJ.
> The Officers take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, to bear true faith and allegiance and to properly discharge the duties of their office
> 
> They don't swear an oath to the US Army.  Both are the same oath as the Army.
> Trust me.  You don't want guardsmen taking their weapons home, running around the woods and streets on their own practicing with the kind of firepower they have on duty.   I have seen local militia wannabes.  You don't really want them running around practicing with theirs either.  What I saw was certainly not what anybody would call well regulated.




National Guard take the oath to the U.S. Constitution and to the state......


----------



## White 6 (Mar 18, 2022)

2aguy said:


> National Guard take the oath to the U.S. Constitution and to the state......


And your point?
Maybe radical citizens are better taking an oath to follow the guy that buys the most beer?


----------



## Flash (Mar 18, 2022)

In the 1700s the term "well regulated" meant to be well provisioned.

Like; "a well provisioned militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Don't presume.  The militia guy weren't when they were recruiting me.  They were shooting with mac10s at quarter pound sticks of TNT, while drinking bear between firing orders and swaggering around fully loaded with their hardware hanging out.  Needless to say, they did not get the benefit of my training.


Since there are no government-organized militias today, you are probably talking about some private group that calls themselves a militia.

I think an actual government-organized militia would be careful about safety.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

Flash said:


> In the 1700s the term "well regulated" meant to be well provisioned.
> Like; "a well provisioned militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Being well provisioned is part of it, but the militia will also need to have trained to a sufficient degree that they can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

In a way what the term means is that the militia kicks ass.  A militia needs to be well equipped and well trained in order to be able to kick ass.


----------



## Flash (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Being well provisioned is part of it, but the militia will also need to have trained to a sufficient degree that they can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
> 
> In a way what the term means is that the militia kicks ass.  A militia needs to be well equipped and well trained in order to be able to kick ass.


There is nothing about a milita being trained in the Second Amendment.  In fact the Second has been determined by the Supreme Court to be an individual right.  No membership in any kind of organized or unorganized organization required, just be an American.


----------



## there4eyeM (Mar 19, 2022)

At what age does the famous "2nd" kick in?


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

Flash said:


> There is nothing about a milita being trained in the Second Amendment.


Sure there is.  It is part of "well regulated".




Flash said:


> In fact the Second has been determined by the Supreme Court to be an individual right.  No membership in any kind of organized or unorganized organization required, just be an American.


True.  And the Supreme Court was correct to rule this way.


----------



## IamZ (Mar 19, 2022)

We all get the vision of what a militia is from stories of the revolution. Men in bars and churches created a private armed group, and protected their country. They didn’t ask  governor Winthrop “hey you mind if I get some friends together to protect our community?”


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> in order to be able to kick ass


one needs legs, not arms.


----------



## Flash (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Sure there is.  It is part of "well regulated".


Seeing that back in the day "well regulated" meant well provisioned like in having enough guns and ammo then that is not accurate.  The purpose of the right was in order to make sure that the state was free the people needed access to arms and bearing arms and that should not be infringed upon by the government.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> There are no caveats. The Second Amendment forbids infringing the right to keep and bear arms.


Okay, judicial activist. They just stuffed those caveats in there to make it sound sexy.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

Flash said:


> Seeing that back in the day "well regulated" meant well provisioned like in having enough guns and ammo then that is not accurate.


Except, that isn't what "well regulated" meant back in the day.  That is only one part part of what "well regulated" meant.

"Well regulated" also meant that the militia had trained to a sufficient degree that they could fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

Overall, "well regulated" meant that the militia was an effective fighting force that could kick ass.  And a militia needed both supplies and training to achieve that.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Okay, judicial activist.


Upholding the law and the Constitution is not judicial activism.

An example of judicial activism would be when progressive judges disregard the law and the Constitution.




Grumblenuts said:


> They just stuffed those caveats in there to make it sound sexy.


No such caveats exist.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

IamZ said:


> We all get the vision of what a militia is from stories of the revolution. Men in bars and churches created a private armed group, and protected their country. They didn’t ask  governor Winthrop “hey you mind if I get some friends together to protect our community?”


Actually the militias were official military bodies organized by the colonial governments.


----------



## IamZ (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Actually the militias were official military bodies organized by the colonial governments.


Noooo they were men in bars that Sam Adams rallied and other patriots rallied .


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2022)

White 6 said:


> And your point?
> Maybe radical citizens are better taking an oath to follow the guy that buys the most beer?




No point, just clarifying the issue.


----------



## White 6 (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Since there are no government-organized militias today, you are probably talking about some private group that calls themselves a militia.
> 
> I think an actual government-organized militia would be careful about safety.


Absolutely,  You are aversed to the National Guard viewed as the militia, no matter it's roots, heritage, state and local service, etc.  I was just relating my experience with local manifestation, organized by more local politicos, people with large marginal income reserves etc. You have be careful who you get in bed with, what their unstated long term goals are and so on, lest you are tied (though innocent in original intent) inextricably to their organization and possible activities.  One day a local group looking to help keep their community safe, next day unknown to rank and file, plotting to kidnap governors.  It is the same with protests and anti-protest group, but with an off brand citizens militia, you start with weapons in the mix.  Remember protests since 2019, where they turned violent or even anti-government, know many had no intention before things got out of hand, they would be party to outright proactive attacks, ending up in jail as youtube stars of insurrection.
I prefer the National Guard for the militia function, or the State's defense force (which is made up of retired Guard) and grounded with the state.


----------



## Flash (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Except, that isn't what "well regulated" meant back in the day.  That is only one part part of what "well regulated" meant.
> 
> "Well regulated" also meant that the militia had trained to a sufficient degree that they could fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
> 
> Overall, "well regulated" meant that the militia was an effective fighting force that could kick ass.  And a militia needed both supplies and training to achieve that.


Since the Supreme Court determined that the Second was an individual right then any disagreement of the meaning of "well regulated" is moot.  It is not a qualifier.  If you aren't "well regulated" then that doesn't prevent you from enjoying the right.  Scalia pretty well put that issue to bed.

The right to keep and bear arms afforded to me is not dependent upon some government weenie's determination of if I am well regulated or not (whatever the government thinks that is) nor is it dependent upon me using my arms solely for the purpose of the security of the free state.  I am protected by the Bill of Rights to use the firearm for recreational purposes or self defense or anything I want to. That right shall not be infringed.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

White 6 said:


> You are aversed to the National Guard viewed as the militia, no matter it's roots, heritage, state and local service, etc.


If the law was changed to separate them from the US Army, they only served inside US borders, and they were allowed to keep their weapons at home, I'd be happy to start counting the National Guard as the militia.




White 6 said:


> the State's defense force (which is made up of retired Guard) and grounded with the state.


State guards would count as militia if states actually armed them with military weapons.

You can join a state guard without having been in the National Guard or in any other military.  It is likely however that ex National Guardsmen are the people most interested in joining their state guard.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

Flash said:


> Since the Supreme Court determined that the Second was an individual right then any disagreement of the meaning of "well regulated" is moot.  It is not a qualifier.  If you aren't "well regulated" then that doesn't prevent you from enjoying the right.  Scalia pretty well put that issue to bed.
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms afforded to me is not dependent upon some government weenie's determination of if I am well regulated or not (whatever the government thinks that is) nor is it dependent upon me using my arms solely for the purpose of the security of the free state.  I am protected by the Bill of Rights to use the firearm for recreational purposes or self defense or anything I want to. That right shall not be infringed.


Agreed.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Mar 19, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> This is clearly an unconstitutional decision. Competence must be questioned.


It was clearly correct and constitutional


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 19, 2022)

Soupnazi630 said:


> It was clearly correct and constitutional


I think rupol2000 is disappointed that the Heller decision didn't go further and start enforcing the militia aspects of the Second Amendment.

It is certainly good that the Supreme Court recognized that the right to keep and bear arms includes private self defense.

But that doesn't do anything for the people who want to bring back the militia.


----------



## White 6 (Mar 19, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> If the law was changed to separate them from the US Army, they only served inside US borders, and they were allowed to keep their weapons at home, I'd be happy to start counting the National Guard as the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Entirely too dangerous, not to control the weaponry in even the smallest not combat arms unit, locked in their vaults.
Very true, about your assessment on state guards.


----------



## there4eyeM (Mar 19, 2022)

So, according to the way the amendment is written, as long as some "arm" were available, the conditions would be satisfied. Nothing says "any and every".


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 19, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> So, according to the way the amendment is written, as long as some "arm" were available, the conditions would be satisfied. Nothing says "any and every".




Nope...that would be like saying as long as you can write on your cell wall the 1st amendment is satisfied.....


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 19, 2022)

> The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. Today, of course, the State militia serves a different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has assumed the role of the militia of 200 years ago. Americans have a right to defend their homes, and nothing should undermine this right; nor does anyone question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting anymore than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing. Neither does anyone question the right of citizens to keep and own an automobile. Yet there is no strong interest by the citizenry in questioning the power of the State to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. It is even more desirable for the State to have reasonable regulations for the ownership and use of a firearm in an effort to stop mindless homicidal carnage.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Entirely too dangerous, not to control the weaponry in even the smallest not combat arms unit, locked in their vaults.


The Swiss have a militia that seems quite a bit like what the Founding Fathers wanted America to have.

Their militiamen have kept their automatic rifles at home without too much trouble.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> So, according to the way the amendment is written, as long as some "arm" were available, the conditions would be satisfied. Nothing says "any and every".


Militiamen have the job of repelling foreign invasions.  That means militiamen have the right to have enough firepower to repel a foreign invasion.

Also, even under the limited scope of the Supreme Court's Heller ruling, restrictions on guns are allowed only if those restrictions can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

That means that if there is no compelling government interest in restricting access to a given type of gun, people have the right to have that type of gun.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 20, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Well regulated militia can be created on the basis of the police. The US police are subordinate to the state and independent of the federals. Armed male can be trained by the police, and participate in police operations as an auxiliary force. This is the shortest way to create a militia.
> The constitution says that the creation of a militia *is necessary*.
> View attachment 594923


nope that was not the purpose of the second amendment


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Well regulated militia can be created on the basis of the police. The US police are subordinate to the state and independent of the federals. Armed male can be trained by the police, and participate in police operations as an auxiliary force. This is the shortest way to create a militia.
> The constitution says that the creation of a militia *is necessary*.
> View attachment 594923





Well regulated means in good working order.

It has zero to do with laws.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 20, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> I said what I said.    Nation.
> 
> If China were to try and invade CA, armed citizens would be there.   Not just CA residents, but from every state.


fuck'em let those in california fix the mess they created.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 20, 2022)

Maxnovax said:


> The only people against militias have a history of being against the United States of America


a lot of blue staters hate America


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 20, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> fuck'em let those in california fix the mess they created.



I would not let any American state fall to invaders.   CA may be completely fucked up, but I don't want an enemy on our continent.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 20, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> I would not let any American state fall to invaders.   CA may be completely fucked up, but I don't want an enemy on our continent.


shrugs an enemy is an enemy regardless many Californias have been just as destructive to America as China


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> nope that was not the purpose of the second amendment


There are multiple purposes of the Second Amendment.  One of those purposes is indeed to require the government to always have a militia and keep it in good working order so that it can effectively defend the nation.

Another purpose of the Second Amendment is to forbid the government from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> There are multiple purposes of the Second Amendment.  One of those purposes is indeed to require the government to always have a militia and keep it in good working order so that it can effectively defend the nation.
> 
> Another purpose of the Second Amendment is to forbid the government from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.


the government doesn't have a second amendment right 
it is the job of the government to protect the second amendment right of the citizens of America.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 20, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> shrugs an enemy is an enemy regardless many Californias have been just as destructive to America as China



I was referring to a military invasion.   As bad as CA has been, they haven't launched a military invasion of Nevada.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 20, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> I was referring to a military invasion.   As bad as CA has been, they haven't launched a military invasion of Nevada.


And Californians and their vote has been destructive as a Chinese military invasion would be


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 20, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> the government doesn't have a second amendment right


I don't know about that.  If a state government wanted to create a militia and the federal government did not allow it, I think that state government would have a case to sue the feds over the Second Amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 20, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> And Californians and their vote has been destructive as a Chinese military invasion would be



I think your hatred of CA has warped your sense of what would happen in an invasion.


----------



## White 6 (Mar 20, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The Swiss have a militia that seems quite a bit like what the Founding Fathers wanted America to have.
> 
> Their militiamen have kept their automatic rifles at home without too much trouble.


They are famous for their neutrality.  We are not.  I have only been there a couple of times, finding it beautiful and high priced.  I do not know how their militia functions.  We do have absolute gun nuts here.  The National Guard is trained to Army Standards and is quite well regulated.  You have no idea what is in those vaults every small, middle sized town and large city.  The security usually has to be quite tight, just to keep stuff from walking away.  I have been a report of survey investigating officer, recovering material in some of the worst neighborhoods in cities, where police insisted I have police backup just to go investigate and recover.  Your idea will not work here, and you definitely do not want these people running around with your full auto weapons on their own recognizance.


----------



## westwall (Mar 20, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> I was referring to a military invasion.   As bad as CA has been, they haven't launched a military invasion of Nevada.




Yeah, they sort of have.  We were a great State till an army of progressive leftist assholes from Cali began invading 20 years ago.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 20, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah, they sort of have.  We were a great State till an army of progressive leftist assholes from Cali began invading 20 years ago.



And I do not doubt they have caused problems.   But nothing compared to a military invasion.    Look at Ukraine and see if it looks better or worse than Nevada.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 22, 2022)

IamZ said:


> We all get the vision of what a militia is from stories of the revolution. Men in bars and churches created a private armed group, and protected their country. They didn’t ask  governor Winthrop “hey you mind if I get some friends together to protect our community?”


Wrong.  The militias in the Revolutionary War were organized into County and State militias.



			https://ia902703.us.archive.org/12/items/virginiamilitiai00mcal/virginiamilitiai00mcal.pdf


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 22, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Absolutely,  You are aversed to the National Guard viewed as the militia, no matter it's roots, heritage, state and local service, etc.  I was just relating my experience with local manifestation, organized by more local politicos, people with large marginal income reserves etc. You have be careful who you get in bed with, what their unstated long term goals are and so on, lest you are tied (though innocent in original intent) inextricably to their organization and possible activities.  One day a local group looking to help keep their community safe, next day unknown to rank and file, plotting to kidnap governors.  It is the same with protests and anti-protest group, but with an off brand citizens militia, you start with weapons in the mix.  Remember protests since 2019, where they turned violent or even anti-government, know many had no intention before things got out of hand, they would be party to outright proactive attacks, ending up in jail as youtube stars of insurrection.
> I prefer the National Guard for the militia function, or the State's defense force (which is made up of retired Guard) and grounded with the state.


Except when the National Guard is in Iraq or Afghanistan then that leaves the States without any defense at all and with no way to get their troops home to defend the state.  The Guard is not the militia.  Find anything in the Constitution that allows the government to send the militia to foreign soil.  Until you do, and since you can't, you're wrong.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 22, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Militiamen have the job of repelling foreign invasions.  That means militiamen have the right to have enough firepower to repel a foreign invasion.
> 
> Also, even under the limited scope of the Supreme Court's Heller ruling, restrictions on guns are allowed only if those restrictions can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.
> 
> That means that if there is no compelling government interest in restricting access to a given type of gun, people have the right to have that type of gun.


and, unfortunately,. it means that they consider that the government can infringe if there's a government interest.  Since the primary interests of government are self-preservation and self-expansion.  There's no thing that, by that standard, the government cannot do.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 22, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> I was referring to a military invasion.   As bad as CA has been, they haven't launched a military invasion of Nevada.


They launched insurrectionist invasions of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho.


----------



## Batcat (Mar 22, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> I said what I said.    Nation.
> 
> If China were to try and invade CA, armed citizens would be there.   Not just CA residents, but from every state.


I hope so but I am beginning to lose faith in the youth of our nation as they have been brainwashed. 

*Would Americans fight for their homeland like Ukrainians? A recent poll is discouraging*


			https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/cynthia-m-allen/article259288559.html


----------



## White 6 (Mar 23, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Except when the National Guard is in Iraq or Afghanistan then that leaves the States without any defense at all and with no way to get their troops home to defend the state.  The Guard is not the militia.  Find anything in the Constitution that allows the government to send the militia to foreign soil.  Until you do, and since you can't, you're wrong.


Big Army has never sent all or even a majority a state's National Guard assets and personnel overseas at the same time.  There are plenty for state defense, or natural emergency response.  The state governors and AG are on signed commitments to support other states, if those state request it, also.  So, they are always available to answer the call of the state or states, performing that state defense mission.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I don't know about that.  If a state government wanted to create a militia and the federal government did not allow it, I think that state government would have a case to sue the feds over the Second Amendment.


The bill of rights was written to insure individuals had their rights protected. The government doesn't have a second amendment right.


----------



## IamZ (Mar 23, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Wrong.  The militias in the Revolutionary War were organized into County and State militias.
> 
> 
> 
> https://ia902703.us.archive.org/12/items/virginiamilitiai00mcal/virginiamilitiai00mcal.pdf


No they walked in to churches and bars and said join or die. Try a again commie


----------



## there4eyeM (Mar 23, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> At what age does the famous "2nd" kick in?


Obviously, there are rational conditions on any "right".


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

White 6 said:


> They are famous for their neutrality.  We are not.  I have only been there a couple of times, finding it beautiful and high priced.  I do not know how their militia functions.


Swiss Militiamen have a full-auto rifle (roughly equivalent to an M-16) that they keep at home.  They take it to gun ranges and practice with it.  I think there are restrictions on where and when the guns can be fired on full-auto.  There are also national shooting competitions that are quite popular.  After they leave the militia, their gun is converted to semi-auto-only and they keep it.  Due to European law they now have to join a shooting club in order to keep using high capacity magazines after leaving the militia, but since shooting competitions are so popular this is not much of a burden.




White 6 said:


> We do have absolute gun nuts here.  The National Guard is trained to Army Standards and is quite well regulated.  You have no idea what is in those vaults every small, middle sized town and large city.  The security usually has to be quite tight, just to keep stuff from walking away.  I have been a report of survey investigating officer, recovering material in some of the worst neighborhoods in cities, where police insisted I have police backup just to go investigate and recover.  Your idea will not work here, and you definitely do not want these people running around with your full auto weapons on their own recognizance.


I don't see why it wouldn't work.  It is possible for people to be responsible with guns.

The US allows a limited amount of full-autos now, and the people who go to the trouble of all the cost and paperwork tend to be very responsible with their guns.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> and, unfortunately,. it means that they consider that the government can infringe if there's a government interest.  Since the primary interests of government are self-preservation and self-expansion.  There's no thing that, by that standard, the government cannot do.


That's not what "government interest" means here though.

If the state can establish that a regulation would actually save a lot of lives, that would pass muster as being a legitimate state interest.

Gun regulations that cannot be established as saving a lot of lives on the other hand would be unlikely to pass muster.

So laws against pistol grips or flash suppressors will be out.  There is no way that such laws save any lives.

The same also for New Jersey's law against hollow point ammo.  And the various laws against .50 caliber guns.  Those laws do not plausibly save any lives.

Laws against machine guns though will probably stand.  People can make a credible case that machine guns can do a lot of damage in the hands of a bad guy.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> Obviously, there are rational conditions on any "right".


The problem is, the left is not asking for rational conditions.  They just want to violate people's rights.

There is no rational reason for outlawing pistol grips or flash suppressors.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The bill of rights was written to insure individuals had their rights protected. The government doesn't have a second amendment right.


I think that if a state government wanted to create a militia, and the feds did not allow it, that state government would have a strong case in court.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I think that if a state government wanted to create a militia, and the feds did not allow it, that state government would have a strong case in court.


If a state government wanted to start a militia they could but it's members would have to supply their own firearms.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 23, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> Obviously, there are rational conditions on any "right".


Like showing a photo ID to vote?


----------



## there4eyeM (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The problem is, the left is not asking for rational conditions.  They just want to violate people's rights.
> 
> There is no rational reason for outlawing pistol grips or flash suppressors.


What/who the "left" is remains undefined, just as the "right". Some of us reject such labels for ourselves. We prefer wisdom to ideology.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I don't know about that.  If a state government wanted to create a militia and the federal government did not allow it, I think that state government would have a case to sue the feds over the Second Amendment.



During Reconstruction, Congress completely disbanded the militias of some southern states.  Of course in 1903, Congress completely absorbed the state militias into the federal Army, in 1933 demanded duel enlistment and in 1952 finally robbed the states and their governors their authority over the federalized "state" guards . . .   No state sued this overreach of federal power until 1990, the federal government was sued by a governor, fighting the deployment of "his" state guard overseas for training, *Perpich v. DOD, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)*.

As had been done every previous time SCOTUS ruled on "militia" disputes, it said federal powers are supreme and preemptive of claims by the states.

Today, there are no powers and certainly no "rights" to be claimed by any entity, federal, state or "the people" (citizens) to call-up, organize, train or deploy citizens _as militia_.

States posses a power granted to them by Congress to form and deploy "State Defensive Forces" but those bodies (like the National Guard) are created under the Constitution's authority of clause 12 (To raise and support Armies) and Title 32 of the US Code which creted the National Guard, which means the supposed autonomy and exclusion of SDF's from federal call-up is in question.  Neither the National Guard or SDF's are militia, at least how the Constitution contemplated and codified "militia".


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Neither the National Guard or SDF's are militia, at least how the Constitution contemplated and codified "militia".


It would be interesting to see what would happen if a state sued for their right to form a militia that was based entirely on the rules of the Constitution.

No state will do so, since maintaining a militia without federal support would be pretty expensive, but it would be an interesting case.




bigrebnc1775 said:


> If a state government wanted to start a militia they could but it's members would have to supply their own firearms.


If a state government formed a militia, the militiamen would have the right to acquire their own military weapons, but I think the state would also be allowed to buy weapons for its militia if it wanted to do so.




there4eyeM said:


> What/who the "left" is remains undefined, just as the "right". Some of us reject such labels for ourselves. We prefer wisdom to ideology.


Left refers to progressives.  Right refers to conservatives.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It would be interesting to see what would happen if a state sued for their right to form a militia that was based entirely on the rules of the Constitution.
> 
> No state will do so, since maintaining a militia without federal support would be pretty expensive, but it would be an interesting case.
> 
> ...


According to supreme Court precedence, and militia acts the militia members were expected to provide their own weapon.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It would be interesting to see what would happen if a state sued for their right to form a militia that was based entirely on the rules of the Constitution.



The lawsuit would be dismissed at the first hearing; states never possessed any autonomous powers to call-up, organize and deploy citizens as militia. 

From Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, Congress alone possesses powers of militia organization, arming, and discipline and to write the training regimen implemented by the states.  There are limited powers reserved in the states:

Article I, Section 8: "Congress shall have the power;​​"cl. 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;​​cl. 16: 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;"​

Preemption doctrine says that wherever Congress acts over a certain interest, no authority remains for states to exert power on the same interest.  

Congress owned all operational militia powers before the Dick Act and since the Congress in the Dick Act completely rescinded the Militia Acts of 1792/95, there are no residual operational militia powers for any entity to exercise, to call-up, organize and deploy citizens as militia.

As a sidebar, private citizens (the people) never possessed _and do not now_ possess any power (or right) to organize themselves as militia and drill or exercise as an armed group.  See _Presser v Illinois_ and _DC v Heller_, affirming _Presser_.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

Abatis said:


> The lawsuit would be dismissed at the first hearing; states never possessed any autonomous powers to call-up, organize and deploy citizens as militia.


State governments have the right to call up and deploy their militia within their own state.




Abatis said:


> From Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, Congress alone possesses powers of militia organization, arming, and discipline and to write the training regimen implemented by the states.  There are limited powers reserved in the states:
> 
> Article I, Section 8: "Congress shall have the power;​
> "cl. 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;​
> cl. 16: 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;"​


The Second Amendment modifies this and ensures that the authority to arm the militia does not lie solely with the feds.

Now, anyone can arm the militia.  The feds, the states, militiamen themselves, concerned citizens who want to donate to the cause, etc.

The above text also gives the states the authority to appoint officers and to train the militia.




Abatis said:


> As a sidebar, private citizens (the people) never possessed _and do not now_ possess any power (or right) to organize themselves as militia and drill or exercise as an armed group.  See _Presser v Illinois_ and _DC v Heller_, affirming _Presser_.


Freedom of association would seem to apply.  Referring to themselves as militia would fall under freedom of speech.


----------



## miketx (Mar 23, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Well regulated militia can be created on the basis of the police. The US police are subordinate to the state and independent of the federals. Armed male can be trained by the police, and participate in police operations as an auxiliary force. This is the shortest way to create a militia.
> The constitution says that the creation of a militia *is necessary*.
> View attachment 594923


You sound like a real commie faggot.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> State governments have the right to call up and deploy their militia within their own state.



If that was true, why was the creation of State Defensive Forces necessary?  

If states possessed this mystical, untethered to the Constitution power to organize citizens as militia, after Congress extinguished the cl. 16 constitutional state militias the states could have just shifted to your imagined power and said no thanks to Congress' contrived fake militia, the cl. 12, SDF's.



Open Bolt said:


> The Second Amendment modifies this and ensures that the authority to arm the militia does not lie solely with the feds.



No, it doesn't . . .



Open Bolt said:


> Now, anyone can arm the militia.  The feds, the states, militiamen themselves, concerned citizens who want to donate to the cause, etc



No, they can't . . .  



Open Bolt said:


> The above text also gives the states the authority to appoint officers and to train the militia.



Appoint officers in a militia only Congress can organize and train members only following the regimen Congress establishes.



Open Bolt said:


> Freedom of association would seem to apply.  Referring to themselves as militia would fall under freedom of speech.



I don't assign any value to "would seem" statements; they are pretty much useless unless we are admitting we are just sharing our feelings.  

When I say, "private citizens (the people) never possessed _and do not now_ possess any power (or right) to organize themselves as militia and drill or exercise as an armed group", I say it because the law supports that statement.  

When I write, "See _Presser v Illinois_ and _DC v Heller_, affirming _Presser_" that is a citation to where the support for my statement is found in law.  

I will say my feeling is it would seem you can't be bothered to examine the sources I said were vital to your understanding this particular question . . . So I will quote them here.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)​
"The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms without and independent of an act of Congress or law of the state authorizing the same is not an attribute of national citizenship.   Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country.  They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law.  Under our political system, they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers.  The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.​​It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States.  The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order.  To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine."​

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)​
_"Presser_ v. _Illinois_, 116 U. S. 252 (1886), held that the right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law.”  _Id._, at 264–265. This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment; no one supporting that interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups."​


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 24, 2022)

Abatis said:


> If that was true, why was the creation of State Defensive Forces necessary?


Provisions for the creation of State Guards were necessary because state governments have the right to call up and deploy their militia in their own state.

Since the National Guard does not satisfy the states' militia needs, if provisions had not been made to let the states create their own militia, the states would have been able to sue and have the Dick Act overturned.

State Guards, if armed, can count as the militia, so allowing the states to create such forces means that the states won't have a grievance to sue the feds over.




Abatis said:


> If states possessed this mystical, untethered to the Constitution power to organize citizens as militia, after Congress extinguished the cl. 16 constitutional state militias the states could have just shifted to your imagined power and said no thanks to Congress' contrived fake militia, the cl. 12, SDF's.


Why would they say no thanks when the State Guards, if armed, can count as militia?




Abatis said:


> No, it doesn't . . .


That is incorrect.  What became the Second Amendment was proposed to address Patrick Henry's concerns expressed at the Virginia Ratifying Convention.  That shows clear intention that the Second Amendment is meant to remedy those specific concerns.  And his specific concerns were that Congress' power to arm the militia would be abused to prevent the militia from being armed.

Patrick Henry:
_"Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them."_

_"Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power “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.” By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither–this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory."_









						Virginia Ratifying Convention
					






					teachingamericanhistory.org
				







Abatis said:


> No, they can't . . .


The Second Amendment says that they can.  It was created to remedy the concerns that Patrick Henry expressed at the Virginia Ratifying Convention.




Abatis said:


> Appoint officers in a militia only Congress can organize and train members only following the regimen Congress establishes.


I think that if Congress denied states the ability to have a militia, the courts would step in.

Congress seems to agree with my assessment, because they allowed states to create their own State Guards, which can count as militia if they are armed.




Abatis said:


> I don't assign any value to "would seem" statements; they are pretty much useless unless we are admitting we are just sharing our feelings.
> 
> When I say, "private citizens (the people) never possessed _and do not now_ possess any power (or right) to organize themselves as militia and drill or exercise as an armed group", I say it because the law supports that statement.
> 
> ...


Those laws sound unconstitutional to me.  I see violations of both freedom of association and freedom of speech.

I'm not saying these private groups will have any real authority to act as militia.  But simply proclaiming themselves to be militia is harmless enough.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 24, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Provisions for the creation of State Guards were necessary because state governments have the right to call up and deploy their militia in their own state.


You keep calling this a "right" but nothing can happen with regard to organized militia without law authorizing action.  There are no militia "rights" for anyone under the Constitution. 

Your phrasing there "seems" to recognize this, you keep saying "right" but then you refer to a provision in law creating and giving what you say is a right . . .  that makes no sense.



Open Bolt said:


> Since the National Guard does not satisfy the states' militia needs, if provisions had not been made to let the states create their own militia, the states would have been able to sue and have the Dick Act overturned.
> 
> State Guards, if armed, can count as the militia, so allowing the states to create such forces means that the states won't have a grievance to sue the feds over.



If your idea is correct, _*IF*_ the states' possessed a 2ndA right to organize and maintain militias, I would agree, the states certainly did have good cause to sue.  

I sit here spinning in a bad case of deja vu because that statement very familiar to me . . .  It has been one of my arguments *against* _*anti-gunners*_ arguing the "militia right" interpretation of the 2ndA for years and years! 

My argument, directed to those claiming the 2ndA protects the states from federal intrusion of their "militia rights" was that the Dick Act _*was*_ grounds for states to sue the feds.  Congress removing their claimed powers/rights to organize, maintain and direct their militias, would have been a violation of the 2ndA *IF* the 2ndA protected state militia interests!

Of course the 2ndA never protected state interests which is why no state sued in 1903-1916 as the Article I, §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia was completely extinguished.



Open Bolt said:


> Why would they say no thanks when the State Guards, if armed, can count as militia?



Seriously?  If the states really "have the right" independent of federal law (or from the 2ndA) to organize, maintain and deploy a "real" (cl's 15 & 16) citizen militia, they wouldn't need or want the federal hand-me-down SDF's, authorized by §8, cl.12 and created by Title 32, (under the the US Army) pseudo-militia given to them by Congress. 

And SDF'a don't count as militia . . .  This reminds me of Lincoln's famous question about the dog's tail:

How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?​Four.​Saying that a tail is a leg doesn’t make it a leg.​


Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.



And yet it *is* correct. Militia powers are only conferred in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 and Art II, §2; the 2ndA has never been inspected to inform or held to direct any militia powers.



Open Bolt said:


> The Second Amendment says that they can.



No, it doesn't . . .  The only thing you are doing repeating these fantasies is proving the old adage, anything is possible when you don't know what you are talking about.



Open Bolt said:


> I think that if Congress denied states the ability to have a militia, the courts would step in.



And yet when it has happened we see no actions being brought.



Open Bolt said:


> Congress seems to agree with my assessment, because they allowed states to create their own State Guards, which can count as militia if they are armed.



So you agree that SDF's are special carve-outs in federal law that _Congress created_ to give states a runner-up prize because states could _never_ organize and maintain cl. 15 & 16 militias (and because of Congress and the Dick Act, no longer exist) *and* that states were forbidden by the Constitution, (Art I, §8, cl. 10), to keep troops without the consent of Congress . . .  OR "allowed" by Congress, as you say, by making a law, under the authority of cl. 12, Congress' power "To raise and support Armies" and writing said law creating SDF's under US Code, Title 32 which created the National Guard of the US Army.

_BUT IT"S A *RIIIGGHT*!!! _



Open Bolt said:


> Those laws sound unconstitutional to me.  I see violations of both freedom of association and freedom of speech.



And yet upheld, even _addressing association_, multiple times by SCOTUS for going on 136 years, now with zero chance of being revisited . . . 



Open Bolt said:


> I'm not saying these private groups will have any real authority to act as militia.  But simply proclaiming themselves to be militia is harmless enough.



The actions prohibited were for bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law.


----------



## BothWings (Mar 24, 2022)

Nowhere does it say that the people's right to keep and bear arms is implicitly DEPENDENT on an organized militia to be justified. The people are to be already armed should it be necessary to call them into a militia. It doesn't say or imply that the government will arm us when they feel like it. It implies that we the people, bearing arms already, can be called upon to support the military if necessary. 

Keyword: KEEP. As in not simply be issued weapons at someone else's convenience. This is very obvious but anti-gun advocates are trying to twist words and confuse people into thinking they need permission to KEEP arms. The Constitution guarantees the right to KEEP them. Permission granted from Day 1.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Mar 24, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> It has a subordination to the federals, it is not provided for in the constitution. Most likely they will side with the feds in the event of a conflict.


They probably won't. I doubt the people in the National Guard will be willing to fire on their friends and neighbors. I don't think you would find many active duty that would do it either.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 25, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Seriously?  If the states really "have the right" independent of federal law (or from the 2ndA) to organize, maintain and deploy a "real" (cl's 15 & 16) citizen militia, they wouldn't need or want the federal hand-me-down SDF's, authorized by §8, cl.12 and created by Title 32, (under the the US Army) pseudo-militia given to them by Congress.
> 
> And SDF'a don't count as militia . . .  This reminds me of Lincoln's famous question about the dog's tail:
> 
> How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?​Four.​Saying that a tail is a leg doesn’t make it a leg.​


Why do you call the State Defense Forces a pseudo-militia?

How are they not a "real" (cl's 15 & 16) citizen militia?

My answer to the rest of your post depends on whether I accept the the State Defense Forces are not real militia, so I'll go back and answer the rest once this part is settled.


----------



## Stryder50 (Mar 25, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> This is clearly an unconstitutional decision. Competence must be questioned.


Only competence issue is your failure to understand our Constitution.


----------



## Stryder50 (Mar 25, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> What/who the "left" is remains undefined, just as the "right". Some of us reject such labels for ourselves. We prefer wisdom to ideology.


However it is basic human nature to categorize others based upon their words and actions.
Like it or not, want it or not;
... all are categorized, placed into a niche/slot.

In USA terms, "The Left" is those whom are on the psuedo-liberal, pro-socialism/communism ideological divide, mostly being Democrats or more extreme such as BLM, AntiFa, etc.

Unfortunately, ideology defines scale and scope of "wisdom" and such varies based upon position on the political divide.


----------



## Stryder50 (Mar 25, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Well regulated militia can be created on the basis of the police. The US police are subordinate to the state and independent of the federals. Armed male can be trained by the police, and participate in police operations as an auxiliary force. This is the shortest way to create a militia.
> The constitution says that the creation of a militia *is necessary*.
> View attachment 594923


First is an obvious failure to grasp some basics of history about 245 years ago, or language terms and usage of that past period.

1) The original 13 colonies of England on the Eastern shores of North America (future USA) had very few soldiers of England stationed in the colonies, nor any formal regiments of "militia" raised by the colony governments.  Along with personal self-defense, local community defense was based upon a local and community militia, a body of armed men willing to defend their community from attack.  In most cases this was from local indigenous, native Americans ("Indians").

2) Standard weapon/firearm of the time was a muzzle loading musket/rifle. Usual deployment of a body of armed men was to form two or more ranks facing your enemy, where the first/closest rank would fire their weapons, then move through the files to the rear of the formation to reload. The second rank would then "Present Arms" and "Fire" as needed or per command.  Then they would move through the files to the rear of the formation to reload, while the next(third) rank would advance a step or two, Ready-Aim-Fire, and so on.

This was common battle drill or in the words of the time, how a "well regulated" militia was trained and would perform if deployed in a line of battle. Further regulation might find them organized into "squads" that would be the ranks when in line of battle formation.

In more broken terrain, rigid block formations might not be possible so you'd find a more "free form" sort of engagement, such as moving through the brush and firing(ambush) from woods, etc.

3) in the case of the War for Independence, local militias were called upon to form larger regiments and compose/augment the Revolutionary Army. Prior to 1775, as England sent more troops to garrison the colonies and enforce Crown Laws, the colonists and their militias began to organize and prepare for possible conflict.  It was a cache'/store of cannons and munitions that the British from Boston were marching to seize and to which local militia, "MinuteMen", responded, resulting in battles of Lexington and Concord.  Part of the start of the WoI.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Mar 25, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Well regulated militia can be created on the basis of the police. The US police are subordinate to the state and independent of the federals. Armed male can be trained by the police, and participate in police operations as an auxiliary force. This is the shortest way to create a militia.
> The constitution says that the creation of a militia *is necessary*.
> View attachment 594923


Any senior non-coms that have served in the field, have the ability to train a well-regulated militia, with the intent to protect their "free" state, from an enemy, whether foreign or domestic.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 25, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Why do you call the State Defense Forces a pseudo-militia?



Because SDF's are not militia, in law, SDF's are considered "other troops".

We need to start with what "militia" is in law . . .   Remember, the Militia Act of 1903 (commonly referred to as The Dick Act) rescinded the Militia Act of 1792, essentially decapitating the state militias, relieving the citizens of all militia obligations.  This put the states into limbo as far as having a body of men to call on, able to respond to the state's needs of civil order and emergency response.  This orphaning of state interests were solidified with the prohibition of overseas deployment of the State Guards being lifted in 1908 with years of squabbles to follow . . .

In 1916 Congress acted again with the National Defense Act; that law was the final legal nail in the coffin of the idea and function of state militias.  That 1916 law federalized the former State Guard units and created the National Guard.  That law also established _*in law*_ what the composition of the militia is.

In 1916, the law as originally enacted declared:






Link to screengrab above:


			https://uscode.house.gov/images/stat/39/197.png
		


That's it, no other entities can be legally called militia; only the members of the National Guard and Naval Militia and the unorganized militia. The law has been modified over the years and _*now *_states (this section was previously designated Title 10 U.S.C. §311):

Title 10 U.S.C. §246. Militia: composition and classes​(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.​​(b) The classes of the militia are—​​(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and​​(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.​​​


Open Bolt said:


> How are they not a "real" (cl's 15 & 16) citizen militia?



As stated above, that militia no longer exists; its hollowed-out corpse is stood-up in the dusty corner of Title 10 and the Title 32 National Guard has stolen its name-tag and assumed its identity, without a shred of its original character remaining.

State Defensive Forces are a creation of Congress cribbed into Title 32, the law that established the National Guard, a stepchild of the US Army . . .

Specifically, SDF's are created in *32 USC §109: Maintenance of other troops* by language from a law created on August 11, 1955, to be inserted in a new subsection, (c) added to §109.




Link to screengrab above:


			https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=69&page=686
		



Interestingly, §109's single original sentence's original purpose was to enforce the Constitution's prohibition on states maintaining other troops . . .  Congress put an exception, drawn from the law they used to create the National Guard, into that prohibition to allow *troops*, not to recognize or grant the states' the ability to organize and maintain militia.

.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Mar 25, 2022)

Governor DeSantis of Florida has announced that he will be recreating the Florida State Militia, one that isn't tied to the federal government and thus focus solely on state emergency needs, whereas the National Guards in all states, come under the purview of the federal government when the federal government wants them to serve as a federal troop multiplier.


----------



## there4eyeM (Mar 26, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> However it is basic human nature to categorize others based upon their words and actions.
> Like it or not, want it or not;
> ... all are categorized, placed into a niche/slot.
> 
> ...


If the word "wisdom" is to have any meaning, it is rather what defines ideology, and not the inverse.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 26, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Because SDF's are not militia, in law, SDF's are considered "other troops".


I don't think it really matters whether they are officially given the title of militia in a statute or not.

So long as they can fulfil the role of a well regulated militia, that should be enough to satisfy the Second Amendment.




Abatis said:


> You keep calling this a "right" but nothing can happen with regard to organized militia without law authorizing action.  There are no militia "rights" for anyone under the Constitution.


"Right" may be the wrong word.  What I am referring to is what you were talking about when you said: _"This put the states into limbo as far as having a body of men to call on, able to respond to the state's needs of civil order and emergency response.  This orphaning of state interests"_

If you'd prefer calling it states' interests instead of states rights, fine.




Abatis said:


> Your phrasing there "seems" to recognize this, you keep saying "right" but then you refer to a provision in law creating and giving what you say is a right . . .  that makes no sense.


If federal law did not provide for those states' interests that you referred to, the states could sue and have the Dick Act struck down as unconstitutional.

The existence of State Defense Forces provides for those states' interests, so the states have no basis for complaint.




Abatis said:


> My argument, directed to those claiming the 2ndA protects the states from federal intrusion of their "militia rights"


The mistake that the gun control movement makes when they argue that the Second Amendment protects the states is, they wrongly claim that that is the only thing that the Second Amendment does.

The Second Amendment is broad, with many facets to it.  It simultaneously protects the rights of states, the rights of individual militiamen (Miller ruling), and the rights of individual citizens (Heller ruling), all at the same time.




Abatis said:


> was that the Dick Act _*was*_ grounds for states to sue the feds.  Congress removing their claimed powers/rights to organize, maintain and direct their militias, would have been a violation of the 2ndA *IF* the 2ndA protected state militia interests!


Except the existence of State Defense Forces was good enough to satisfy the states' interests.  Therefore the states had no grounds for complaint.




Abatis said:


> Of course the 2ndA never protected state interests which is why no state sued in 1903-1916 as the Article I, §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia was completely extinguished.
> 
> And yet it *is* correct. Militia powers are only conferred in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 and Art II, §2; the 2ndA has never been inspected to inform or held to direct any militia powers.
> 
> No, it doesn't . . .  The only thing you are doing repeating these fantasies is proving the old adage, anything is possible when you don't know what you are talking about.


The Founding Fathers left behind a lot of documentation showing that they intended the Second Amendment to protect the effectiveness of the militia so that the states would be able to rely on the militia.




Abatis said:


> And yet when it has happened we see no actions being brought.


The State Defense Forces are enough to satisfy the interests of the states, so there is no cause for action.

The cause for action would come if there were no State Defense Forces.




Abatis said:


> So you agree that SDF's are special carve-outs in federal law that _Congress created_ to give states a runner-up prize because states could _never_ organize and maintain cl. 15 & 16 militias (and because of Congress and the Dick Act, no longer exist) *and* that states were forbidden by the Constitution, (Art I, §8, cl. 10), to keep troops without the consent of Congress . . .  OR "allowed" by Congress, as you say, by making a law, under the authority of cl. 12, Congress' power "To raise and support Armies" and writing said law creating SDF's under US Code, Title 32 which created the National Guard of the US Army.
> _BUT IT"S A *RIIIGGHT*!!! _


I do not see the State Defense Forces as a runner up prize.

They fulfil my criteria for a proper militia.  The only problem I have with them is that currently they are not well regulated.




Abatis said:


> And yet upheld, even _addressing association_, multiple times by SCOTUS for going on 136 years, now with zero chance of being revisited . . .


I think if anyone in the government tries to prosecute the militia movement for being an illegal body, the matter of freedom of association and freedom of speech will be revisited very quickly.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 27, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I don't think it really matters whether they are officially given the title of militia in a statute or not.



What doesn't really matter is your opinion whether they are officially given the title of militia in a statute or not.  Statute says only the members of the National Guard and the Naval Militia and members of the _unorganized_ militia meet the legal definition of militia.



Open Bolt said:


> So long as they can fulfil the role of a well regulated militia, that should be enough to satisfy the Second Amendment.



Can someone just decide to grab a USPS jeep and deliver mail?

The only way to "satisfy" the 2nd Amendment is for Congress to never make or enforce any law violating the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  There is no positive law aspect of the 2nd Amendment that needs to be satisfied or fulfilled by any person's (government or citizen) directed action.



Open Bolt said:


> "Right" may be the wrong word.  What I am referring to is what you were talking about when you said: _"This put the states into limbo as far as having a body of men to call on, able to respond to the state's needs of civil order and emergency response.  This orphaning of state interests"_
> 
> If you'd prefer calling it states' interests instead of states rights, fine.



But whatever '_that_' is, it does not flow from the 2nd Amendment.  Whatever residual powers states possessed over their militia was a circumstance of cl. 16 and the Militia Act, not the 2ndA.  

As disputes over control and direction of militia (between the feds and the states) were decided, the feds claims were always held supreme and preemptive over state claims . . .   See; _Houston v. Moore_, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820), _Martin v. Mott_, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827), _Selective Draft Law Cases_, 245 U.S. 366 (1917), and of course, _Perpich v. Department of Defense_, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).

While this law review article was directed to rebut the anti-gun "state's right" interpretation, it also rebuts yours since, on it's foundation, your theory is identical (except for end game, to negate the right to keep and bear arms part).   

Please read it.





__





						Exposing the Second Amendment: Federal Preemption of State Militia Legislation
					





					guncite.com
				






Open Bolt said:


> If federal law did not provide for those states' interests that you referred to, the states could sue and have the Dick Act struck down as unconstitutional.



An attractive theory but totally destroyed by SCOTUS, (field preemption), read the link above . . .



Open Bolt said:


> The existence of State Defense Forces provides for those states' interests, so the states have no basis for complaint.



That was the reasoning for creating them.  I don't dispute that they do serve a purpose, I just disagree with any statement that they are constitutionally grounded militia.



Open Bolt said:


> The mistake that the gun control movement makes when they argue that the Second Amendment protects the states is, they wrongly claim that that is the only thing that the Second Amendment does.



Well, the entire theory was disingenuous (along with the "militia right" interpretation) and was argued in the lower federal courts for the singular purpose to give them an excuse to reject, without analysis or discussion, the claims of an individual right to keep and bear arms by citizens of the USA.   

The theory was inserted in federal law* and employed to dismiss and ignore SCOTUS in _Miller_, to avoid enforcing the 2nd Amendment and invalidating gun laws.  It worked in the theoretical and practical for 66 years but then SCOTUS failed to continue the mission after 2008, so for most practical purposes the cancer still continues . . . 

* For the "state's right", _U.S. v. Tot, _131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), for the "state's right", _Cases v. U.S_., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)




Open Bolt said:


> The Second Amendment is broad, with many facets to it.  It simultaneously protects the rights of states, the rights of individual militiamen (Miller ruling), and the rights of individual citizens (Heller ruling), all at the same time.



No, the 2ndA has only one "facet" and I'm happy to see you think SCOTUS has some authority!

SCOTUS in _Cruikshank_ and _Presser_ said, ("it" refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"):

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government . . . "​
Where does _Miller_ mention any "rights of militiamen"?  _Miller_ said nothing about the men's militia status and we sure know neither ever claimed any militia status in their defense.



Open Bolt said:


> Except the existence of State Defense Forces was good enough to satisfy the states' interests.  Therefore the states had no grounds for complaint.



My argument was facetious.  It was made to ridicule and insult the anti-gunner's undeveloped argument, I wouldn't attach yourself to it in any way.



Open Bolt said:


> The Founding Fathers left behind a lot of documentation showing that they intended the Second Amendment to protect the effectiveness of the militia so that the states would be able to rely on the militia.



Correct, in a perfect world the federal government would have been diligent in fulfilling its cl. 16 duty to the states and keeping the militia operational; unfortunately, the feds and the states allowed the militia fall into an ill-regulated mess . . .  That made killing the citizen militia not just easy, but an imperative to raise a standing army on its ruins. 

The object of the 2ndA was to preserve the general militia principle.  The framers did that by securing that the people, from whom the militia would be assembled if called, shall have the right to keep and bear arms.  



Open Bolt said:


> I think if anyone in the government tries to prosecute the militia movement for being an illegal body, the matter of freedom of association and freedom of speech will be revisited very quickly.



They already have.  Every state has some kind of law criminalizing private militias or armed assemblies.  Earlier this year, *Idaho's lawmakers introduced a law repealing their laws*.

Here's a graphic showing the types of laws in the different states, link below is an extensive examination of all those laws and is the source of the graphic (1.49MB pdf):






			https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2018/04/Prohibiting-Private-Armies-at-Public-Rallies.pdf
		


.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 30, 2022)

Abatis said:


> What doesn't really matter is your opinion whether they are officially given the title of militia in a statute or not.


I've not offered any opinion about that.  I am sure you quoted the law accurately.




Abatis said:


> Statute says only the members of the National Guard and the Naval Militia and members of the _unorganized_ militia meet the legal definition of militia.


Statutes say all sorts of untrue things.  They refer to semi-autos as assault weapons.  They refer to assault weapons as machine guns.  They refer to small bombs as weapons of mass destruction.




Abatis said:


> Can someone just decide to grab a USPS jeep and deliver mail?


They can if the law is written to allow them to do so (much like the law is written to allow State Defense Forces to fill in for the militia).




Abatis said:


> The only way to "satisfy" the 2nd Amendment is for Congress to never make or enforce any law violating the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


That satisfies the second half of the Second Amendment.




Abatis said:


> There is no positive law aspect of the 2nd Amendment that needs to be satisfied or fulfilled by any person's (government or citizen) directed action.


I see the first half as something that needs to be satisfied as well.




Abatis said:


> But whatever '_that_' is, it does not flow from the 2nd Amendment.  Whatever residual powers states possessed over their militia was a circumstance of cl. 16 and the Militia Act, not the 2ndA.


It is not so much that the first half of the Second Amendment protects the states' authority over the militia, but that it ensures that the militia is there to begin with.




Abatis said:


> As disputes over control and direction of militia (between the feds and the states) were decided, the feds claims were always held supreme and preemptive over state claims . . .   See; _Houston v. Moore_, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820), _Martin v. Mott_, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827), _Selective Draft Law Cases_, 245 U.S. 366 (1917), and of course, _Perpich v. Department of Defense_, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).
> 
> While this law review article was directed to rebut the anti-gun "state's right" interpretation, it also rebuts yours since, on it's foundation, your theory is identical (except for end game, to negate the right to keep and bear arms part).
> 
> ...


That the feds can preempt the states does not mean that the states don't have any interests regarding the militia.  State interests still exist where the feds have not preempted them.

I haven't exhaustively reviewed the cases referred to in that article, but I think it is likely that some of those rulings are wrong.  It is certainly illegitimate to make the National Guard part of the US Army.  I am also highly skeptical that drafting individual militiamen into the Army is legitimate.




Abatis said:


> That was the reasoning for creating them.  I don't dispute that they do serve a purpose, I just disagree with any statement that they are constitutionally grounded militia.


The purpose that the State Defense Forces serve for the states is the same purpose that the militia was intended to serve for the states.




Abatis said:


> Well, the entire theory was disingenuous (along with the "militia right" interpretation) and was argued in the lower federal courts for the singular purpose to give them an excuse to reject, without analysis or discussion, the claims of an individual right to keep and bear arms by citizens of the USA.
> 
> The theory was inserted in federal law* and employed to dismiss and ignore SCOTUS in _Miller_, to avoid enforcing the 2nd Amendment and invalidating gun laws.  It worked in the theoretical and practical for 66 years but then SCOTUS failed to continue the mission after 2008, so for most practical purposes the cancer still continues . . .
> 
> * For the "state's right", _U.S. v. Tot, _131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), for the "state's right", _Cases v. U.S_., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)


SCOTUS has resumed their mission of enforcing the right to keep and bear arms.

I think they will apply Strict Scrutiny to the right this summer.

I think what happened is Kennedy lost his nerve after McDonald v Chicago, and they lost their fifth vote for awhile.  But they got that fifth vote back with Kavanaugh, and now a sixth vote with Barrett, so now everything should be full speed ahead with enforcing the right to keep and bear arms.




Abatis said:


> SCOTUS in _Cruikshank_ and _Presser_ said, ("it" refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"):
> 
> "The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government . . . "​


The Second Amendment does do that.  I just contend that it does more than that.




Abatis said:


> Where does _Miller_ mention any "rights of militiamen"?  _Miller_ said nothing about the men's militia status and we sure know neither ever claimed any militia status in their defense.


Where they said: _"has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"_




Abatis said:


> My argument was facetious.  It was made to ridicule and insult the anti-gunner's undeveloped argument, I wouldn't attach yourself to it in any way.


The anti-gunners are wrong to suggest that the existence of states' rights precludes the existence of individual rights.  But I don't think they are wrong to argue for the existence of states' rights.




Abatis said:


> Correct, in a perfect world the federal government would have been diligent in fulfilling its cl. 16 duty to the states and keeping the militia operational; unfortunately, the feds and the states allowed the militia fall into an ill-regulated mess . . .  That made killing the citizen militia not just easy, but an imperative to raise a standing army on its ruins.


That's why the Founding Fathers wrote the first half of the Second Amendment.  They wanted to mandate that such a thing never be allowed to happen.




Abatis said:


> The object of the 2ndA was to preserve the general militia principle.  The framers did that by securing that the people, from whom the militia would be assembled if called, shall have the right to keep and bear arms.


And also by mandating that there always be a well regulated militia.




Abatis said:


> They already have.


I am unaware of any modern prosecutions of private militia for being illegal bodies.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 31, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I've not offered any opinion about that.



Of course you have.  You have repeatedly made claims that the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment "mandates" or "requires" the government to always provide for a militia and keep it in good working order. 

Mandates and requirements for government to act _*only *_flow from positive law / legislation / statutes, not the 2ndA's legally inert,  "_A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state_; . . . " statement of principle. 

Even in the provisions of the Bill of Rights that unquestionably demand / mandate / require government to act, in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments, none of those mandates are self-actualizing.  They all need expansive exercise in law to make them real and actionable and to provide the protections recognized.

There's a very good reason why the 2ndA's declaratory clause has never been inspected to inform or held to "mandate" anything; you should pay attention to that.



Open Bolt said:


> Statutes say all sorts of untrue things.



And again, your personal opinion of what is "true", is of zero significance when faced with longstanding legal realities, repeatedly expressed in multiple laws and judicial decisions.  States fought for militia autonomy and independence and federal preemption extinguished their claims of authority and they repeatedly lost.  Like it of not, that is real and true. 



Open Bolt said:


> They can if the law is written to allow them to do so (much like the law is written to allow State Defense Forces to fill in for the militia).



My question was referring to *the link to Georgetown* I provided earlier, that reviews all the different state prohibitions.  

It noted that ALL states expressly prohibit private militias and/or private paramilitary activity and/or forbid private citizens to assume the duties of a peace officer or member of the military or to wear a military style uniform.

Pretty much everything you say there is a right to do, there are laws expressly declaring it illegal.



Open Bolt said:


> I see the first half as something that needs to be satisfied as well.



Sorry, it just isn't there . . .

cont>>>


----------



## Abatis (Mar 31, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> It is not so much that the first half of the Second Amendment protects the states' authority over the militia, but that it ensures that the militia is there to begin with.



The organized militia is a product of Art. I, §8, cl's. 15 & 16 of the Constitution *ONLY*.  It only existed and functioned within, and for as long as Congress and federal law allowed it to exist and function.

Today, the law no longer allows the framer's conception of militia to exist and function; the Dick Act in 1903 and the National Defense Act of 1916 extinguished that militia and raised the national standing army the framers detested, on its ashes.



Open Bolt said:


> That the feds can preempt the states does not mean that the states don't have any interests regarding the militia.  State interests still exist where the feds have not preempted them.



Well, given the feds have left no true militia powers standing for the states to fight over, your argument is moot. 

The states never could and certainly can not now, organize their own militia independent of federal law.  Currently, since no true militia law exists,  no entity can call-up citizens and organize them as militia.

States are only allowed to form SDF's which are a special carve-out by Congress in federal law creating the National Guard, written to avoid the conflict of states keeping troops when the Constitution expressly prohibits states to keep troops. 

You have invented a novel definition of "militia" to serve your personal opinions that is not represented in law.  Certainly you are free to call SDF's "militia" but that personal opinion does not make it so.  While SDF's do provide a few functions that were originally the organized militia's, that limited usefulness does not make them militia because SDF's can not perform all the security functions of militia.

Your argument is essentially one of, well, your town has a police force now, so there's no need for regular citizens to have the right to self defense.  Not only that, because the police have relieved you of self defense, we will be calling the police the _citizen's self defense force_ . . . Same thing right???



Open Bolt said:


> I haven't exhaustively reviewed the cases referred to in that article, but I think it is likely that some of those rulings are wrong.



Or you are wrong . .  .



Open Bolt said:


> It is certainly illegitimate to make the National Guard part of the US Army.



And even worse, SDF's are part of the National Guard . . .

cont>>>>


----------



## Abatis (Mar 31, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I am also highly skeptical that drafting individual militiamen into the Army is legitimate.



From 1788, original, constitutional militia could be "called into actual service of the nation" and that event was the only condition whereby the federal government could directly control that part of the militias of the states (the President becoming Commander in Chief and Congress' power to "govern").  

After 1903, the state militias (and the members) were absorbed, consumed by the National Guard (US Army) and whatever limited, residual powers that could be claimed by the states to dirct the actions of those units and men, were completely erased.

After 1933, anyone joining their state's National Guard unit undergoes a duel enlistment condition; they take an oath to serve two entities with one (the federal) being the master.  In 1952, Congress removed a governor's power to veto overseas training deployments of their Guard units, it was _*that*_ event that forced the creation of SDF's in 1955 . . .  So, it wasn't so much a Guard member being "drafted" into the Army, it is just a case the _*real *_boss is exerting its complete, unquestionable authority and the states surrender.



Open Bolt said:


> The purpose that the State Defense Forces serve for the states is the same purpose that the militia was intended to serve for the states.



Are you arguing SDF's can legitimately defend the state against federal overstepping of authority, AKA tyranny?  Because *that* defensive function was an integral part of the militia concept as envisioned by the founders / framers of the Constitution, (see Federalist *29* & *46*).

SDF's can not fulfill "the same purpose that the militia was intended to serve for the states" unless you are saying that --_fighting the out of control federal government_-- function survives in SDF's -- if so, please explain.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 31, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> SCOTUS has resumed their mission of enforcing the right to keep and bear arms.



We will see . . .



Open Bolt said:


> I think they will apply Strict Scrutiny to the right this summer.



If the Court does issue a comprehensive RKBA / 2ndA decision, I expect them to reject all scrutiny based applications.  

Going by oral arguments and since it seems a sure thing Justice Kavanaugh is writing the _NYSRPA_ majority opinion, we will hopefully see a simple "_*text, informed by history and tradition*_" guidance ordered by the Court.



Open Bolt said:


> I think what happened is Kennedy lost his nerve after McDonald v Chicago, and they lost their fifth vote for awhile.  But they got that fifth vote back with Kavanaugh, and now a sixth vote with Barrett, so now everything should be full speed ahead with enforcing the right to keep and bear arms.



Certainly Kennedy was the squishy Justice that caused even pro-2ndA Justices to vote to deny a slew of petitions for certiorari since _Heller_. 

Hopefully, SCOTUS will move the ball forward. I'm hoping, besides NY state's discriminatory permit scheme, the Court negates / invalidates the federal Circuit's "two-step inquiry" which would force dozens of challenges in the Circuits on decisions sustaining assault weapon bans and LCM bans etc,.  Those decisions would be reheard using "_*text, informed by history and tradition*_" guidance and will be reversed in those Circuits, no further hearings by SCOTUS will be necessary.



Open Bolt said:


> The Second Amendment does do that.  I just contend that it does more than that.



That is an opinion maintained in conflict with hundreds of years of legal philosophy and practice.

cont>>>


----------



## Abatis (Mar 31, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Where they said: _"has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"_



*WHAT* specifically is the Court referring to that, _"has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"_?

Was the Court talking about the issuance of militia regulations or any mandate that forces someone to have as their focus "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"?   

No . . .   The thing that the Court is saying must have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is *the type of arm* and whether its possession could preserve the general militia principle and its use could promote the efficiency (in fighting) of those forces.

The sawed-off shotgun in _Miller_ was not eligible for Second Amendment protection because the Court said it heard no evidence that, "_*this *_*[type of] weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment*_ or _*that its use could contribute to the common defense*_._”  Had someone showed up to argue that a shotgun with a barrel length under 18 inches _was _a type of arm that would be useful in battle, the posssession and use of that type of gun would have been protected. 



Open Bolt said:


> The anti-gunners are wrong to suggest that the existence of states' rights precludes the existence of individual rights.  But I don't think they are wrong to argue for the existence of states' rights.



But like any interest, if the power over that interest has been conferred to Congress, no "right" to that interest remains for any entity to claim.  That works for both states and citizens in both directions . . . 

The interests "We the People" have conferred to Congress, (see Art I, §8), neither the people or the states can claim as a right, OTOH, those interests for which no power has been conferred, rights have been retained and government can not claim any power over.  The principle of this rule is recognized in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

cont>>>


----------



## Abatis (Mar 31, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That's why the Founding Fathers wrote the first half of the Second Amendment.  They wanted to mandate that such a thing never be allowed to happen.



The provisions of the Bill of Rights are an amalgam of a bunch of proposals sent to Congress by the states; Madison wasn't the author, he was the editor.

For the RKBA, if you look at those suggestions and the provisions of the states, you see state constitutions lumped themes with similar objects (intents) together in their bills of rights.

Most of the states had a provision that had the intent of binding government in the area of military affairs in multiple ways, these provisions were three pronged. a) The citizens retained a right to bear arms, b) standing armies in time of peace were not to be maintained and c), the military should always be subordinate to the civil authority. A typical one was my state's:


*1790 Pennsylvania:* 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.


Again, the framers were very accustomed to legally inert, inactive declarations of principle in constitutional provisions; nobody believed these provisions really forbade the forming and maintaining of a national army; these were state constitutional provisions with zero effect beyond the state line. They were merely stating an ideal . . .

The declaration, "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_" is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "_as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up_." To the framers each represented the same sentiment . . .

The 2ndA's declaratory clause only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim of republics; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).



Open Bolt said:


> And also by mandating that there always be a well regulated militia.



That action and effect just isn't there . . .



Open Bolt said:


> I am unaware of any modern prosecutions of private militia for being illegal bodies.



And yet the laws prohibiting private militas exist and the 2nd Amendment is not a claimable immunity to repel prosecution if and when the authorities decide to prosecute, see _Presser_ and _Heller_.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 2, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Of course you have.


I see nothing significant about statutes that purport to define the militia, and I have expended no energy thinking about any such statutes or forming opinions about them.

In my view the only definition of the militia that matters is what the Constitution describes.  And the Constitution describes a body whose _only_ federal role is enforcing the law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion.  It also describes militiamen as having the right to keep their own weapons instead of leaving them under government control when they are not being used.




Abatis said:


> You have repeatedly made claims that the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment "mandates" or "requires" the government to always provide for a militia and keep it in good working order.


Yes.  But that does not mean I have paid any attention to statutes that purport to define the militia.




Abatis said:


> Mandates and requirements for government to act _*only *_flow from positive law / legislation / statutes,


I disagree.  I think that constitutions are allowed to mandate things directly.




Abatis said:


> Even in the provisions of the Bill of Rights that unquestionably demand / mandate / require government to act, in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments, none of those mandates are self-actualizing.  They all need expansive exercise in law to make them real and actionable and to provide the protections recognized.


If so, then the courts are not doing their job of enforcing the Constitution.




Abatis said:


> There's a very good reason why the 2ndA's declaratory clause has never been inspected to inform or held to "mandate" anything; you should pay attention to that.


I am unaware of any good reasons for this.




Abatis said:


> And again, your personal opinion of what is "true", is of zero significance when faced with longstanding legal realities, repeatedly expressed in multiple laws and judicial decisions.


I disagree.  I think people should remain aware of reality even when laws say things that aren't true.




Abatis said:


> My question was referring to *the link to Georgetown* I provided earlier, that reviews all the different state prohibitions.
> It noted that ALL states expressly prohibit private militias and/or private paramilitary activity and/or forbid private citizens to assume the duties of a peace officer or member of the military or to wear a military style uniform.
> Pretty much everything you say there is a right to do, there are laws expressly declaring it illegal.


State Defense Forces are not private militias.  They are organized by state governments under authority provided by federal law.  Any laws regarding private militias would not apply to them.




Abatis said:


> Well, given the feds have left no true militia powers standing for the states to fight over, your argument is moot.


State governments still have the power/authority/right (choose your preferred term) to use the militia to enforce order within their own state.




Abatis said:


> You have invented a novel definition of "militia" to serve your personal opinions that is not represented in law.  Certainly you are free to call SDF's "militia" but that personal opinion does not make it so.  While SDF's do provide a few functions that were originally the organized militia's, that limited usefulness does not make them militia because SDF's can not perform all the security functions of militia.


I was going to ask what security functions a SDF could not perform, but you answered that below.

I don't see why, if the states were at war with the feds, a state could not order their SDF to fight against the feds.




Abatis said:


> Your argument is essentially one of, well, your town has a police force now, so there's no need for regular citizens to have the right to self defense.  Not only that, because the police have relieved you of self defense, we will be calling the police the _citizen's self defense force_ . . . Same thing right???


It's not the same thing.  Self defense is for protection when the police are not present.




Abatis said:


> Or you are wrong . . .


A ruling that allows a standing army to count as the militia is clearly contrary to the intent of the Framers.  It is much more likely that it is the ruling that is wrong.




Abatis said:


> And even worse, SDF's are part of the National Guard . . .


How are State Defense Forces part of the National Guard?




Abatis said:


> From 1788, original, constitutional militia could be "called into actual service of the nation" and that event was the only condition whereby the federal government could directly control that part of the militias of the states (the President becoming Commander in Chief and Congress' power to "govern").
> After 1903, the state militias (and the members) were absorbed, consumed by the National Guard (US Army) and whatever limited, residual powers that could be claimed by the states to dirct the actions of those units and men, were completely erased.
> After 1933, anyone joining their state's National Guard unit undergoes a duel enlistment condition; they take an oath to serve two entities with one (the federal) being the master.  In 1952, Congress removed a governor's power to veto overseas training deployments of their Guard units, it was _*that*_ event that forced the creation of SDF's in 1955 . . .  So, it wasn't so much a Guard member being "drafted" into the Army, it is just a case the _*real *_boss is exerting its complete, unquestionable authority and the states surrender.


Being part of the Army means that the National Guard is not the militia.

When I said that I was skeptical that drafting militiamen was legitimate, I was referring to the drafting of members of State Defense Forces.

I think the Constitution forbids drafting active militia into a standing army.

Since I count SDFs as active militia, I think the Constitution forbids drafting members of the SDFs into the US Army.

Therefore I consider the ruling that allowed this to happen, to have been wrongly decided.




Abatis said:


> Are you arguing SDF's can legitimately defend the state against federal overstepping of authority, AKA tyranny?  Because *that* defensive function was an integral part of the militia concept as envisioned by the founders / framers of the Constitution, (see Federalist *29* & *46*).
> SDF's can not fulfill "the same purpose that the militia was intended to serve for the states" unless you are saying that --_fighting the out of control federal government_-- function survives in SDF's -- if so, please explain.


Actual civil war between the federal government and some (or all) of the states would be a pretty dire situation.  But if such a situation ever developed, I see no reason why state governments could not order their State Defense Forces to go to war with the federal government.




Abatis said:


> it seems a sure thing Justice Kavanaugh is writing the _NYSRPA_ majority opinion,


Why do you say that?

I count four justices who haven't yet written an opinion for the November sitting.

I count six conservative votes, so I'm sure it's not Sotomayor.  But Thomas and Barrett also haven't written a majority opinion for November.




Abatis said:


> *WHAT* specifically is the Court referring to that, _"has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"_?
> Was the Court talking about the issuance of militia regulations or any mandate that forces someone to have as their focus "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"?
> No . . .   The thing that the Court is saying must have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is *the type of arm* and whether its possession could preserve the general militia principle and its use could promote the efficiency (in fighting) of those forces.
> The sawed-off shotgun in _Miller_ was not eligible for Second Amendment protection because the Court said it heard no evidence that, "_*this *_*[type of] weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment*_ or _*that its use could contribute to the common defense*_._”  Had someone showed up to argue that a shotgun with a barrel length under 18 inches _was _a type of arm that would be useful in battle, the possession and use of that type of gun would have been protected.


Yes.  Thus my referring to Miller as representing the militia aspect of the individual right (whereas Heller represents the self defense aspect of the individual right).




Abatis said:


> But like any interest, if the power over that interest has been conferred to Congress, no "right" to that interest remains for any entity to claim.  That works for both states and citizens in both directions . . .


I don't accept that this is a universal rule.  There are some cases where the feds have sole jurisdiction.  There are other cases where jurisdiction is shared.  Federal laws against murder, for example, do not prevent states from also having laws against murder.

In the case of the militia, a state government's power to use the militia to keep order within their own state state is a power that has never been conferred to the feds.

Also, the power that was conferred to the feds in Article 1 Section 8 was subsequently modified by the Second Amendment.




Abatis said:


> The provisions of the Bill of Rights are an amalgam of a bunch of proposals sent to Congress by the states; Madison wasn't the author, he was the editor.
> For the RKBA, if you look at those suggestions and the provisions of the states, you see state constitutions lumped themes with similar objects (intents) together in their bills of rights.
> Most of the states had a provision that had the intent of binding government in the area of military affairs in multiple ways, these provisions were three pronged. a) The citizens retained a right to bear arms, b) standing armies in time of peace were not to be maintained and c), the military should always be subordinate to the civil authority. A typical one was my state's:
> 
> ...


I interpret such a provision as _actually_ forbidding a peacetime standing army.

Being part of a state constitution, I don't think it has any power over the feds however.




Abatis said:


> And yet the laws prohibiting private militas exist and the 2nd Amendment is not a claimable immunity to repel prosecution if and when the authorities decide to prosecute, see _Presser_ and _Heller_.


The First Amendment will be claimable as immunity to repel prosecution.  Freedom of association and freedom of speech.

That's not to say that private militia cannot be prosecuted if they actually attempt to carry out law enforcement functions.  But so long as all they do is get together and proclaim themselves to be militia, they will be safe from prosecution.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 17, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Big Army has never sent all or even a majority a state's National Guard assets and personnel overseas at the same time.  There are plenty for state defense, or natural emergency response.  The state governors and AG are on signed commitments to support other states, if those state request it, also.  So, they are always available to answer the call of the state or states, performing that state defense mission.



Who said anything about sending a majority or all of a state's National Guard personnel overseas at the same time or at any time?  The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the authority to send a single militia member overseas.  Not all, not the majority, and NOT ONE.  The National Guard is regular army reserve and subject to deployment overseas and are often sent overseas.  This means that the National Guard is NOT the militia.  Your post is pure nonsense.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That's not what "government interest" means here though.
> 
> If the state can establish that a regulation would actually save a lot of lives, that would pass muster as being a legitimate state interest.
> 
> ...



It is exactly what "government interest" means here.  And there are no "government interest" exceptions to the Constitution.  It doesn't matter if it saves one life or a million lives, the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 17, 2022)

Abatis said:


> During Reconstruction, Congress completely disbanded the militias of some southern states.  Of course in 1903, Congress completely absorbed the state militias into the federal Army, in 1933 demanded duel enlistment and in 1952 finally robbed the states and their governors their authority over the federalized "state" guards . . .   No state sued this overreach of federal power until 1990, the federal government was sued by a governor, fighting the deployment of "his" state guard overseas for training, *Perpich v. DOD, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)*.
> 
> As had been done every previous time SCOTUS ruled on "militia" disputes, it said federal powers are supreme and preemptive of claims by the states.
> 
> ...



The States absolutely have the right to create and control their own militias.  The Constitution grants Congress some authority over "such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States".  The clear intended implication is that there is part of the militia that is NOT in the service of the United States and is, therefore protected under the 10th Amendment, a power of the States.  

In fact, for much of the history of the United States, Congress chose not to exercise their legitimate power to arm, train, and discipline the militias according to the discipline prescribed by Congress - and still the militias existed in the States.

Congress' authority over the militias only extend to those parts in the service of the US and that service can only be insurrection, invasion, and to enforce the law of the United States.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> In my view the only definition of the militia that matters is what the Constitution describes.


In your personal, subjective, and irrelevant view.

The only definition of the militia that matters is what the courts decide – ultimately the Supreme Court.

But you’re entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 17, 2022)

White 6 said:


> We have a well regulated militia.  It is called the National Guard.


Nope the Guard is part of the military.  It ultimately answers to the president.  Just ask the ghost of Orval Faunus who had Ike federalize the Arkansas National Guard right out from under his orders when he used it to enforce segregation.  I believe the same thing happened in Alabama.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 17, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Like Scalia, many choose to simply ignore the "well regulated" part. However, The Founders never indicated any of it being optional. To the contrary, they declared it "necessary" and yes, "to the security of a free state" - meaning their particular State, not necessarily "their nation". They were indeed opposed to having a standing army. Only by allowing the individual States to worry about protecting the entire Union (in times of peace, i.e. when there would be no standing army) could they get enough agreement to have the document signed in the first place.


Well regulated doesn’t mean what you think it does.  When the Constitution was written “well regulated” meant properly working.  An accurate marine chronometer was “well regulated” meaning it kept accurate time which was necessary to determine longitude and latitude for navigation.  MODERN meaning is controlled.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> Armed citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent authorization from the state or Federal government.
> 
> Absent such authorization, they’re nothing but a lawless gang of armed thugs.


When did the British authorize the Minutemen who fought at Lexington and Concord to possess not only pistols, swords and muskets, but artillery as well.  The British were on their way to confiscate arms, powder and artillery owned by citizens who, to say the least, didn’t think highly of the British Crown.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 17, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Except, that isn't what "well regulated" meant back in the day.  That is only one part part of what "well regulated" meant.
> 
> "Well regulated" also meant that the militia had trained to a sufficient degree that they could fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
> 
> Overall, "well regulated" meant that the militia was an effective fighting force that could kick ass.  And a militia needed both supplies and training to achieve that.


In the Revolution and War of 1812,  militias were rarely effective fighting forces by the standards of the day.  They were willing, but usually poorly disciplined and their officers generally didn’t know the first thing about fighting battles.  Militia had a reputation of turning tail and running when confronted by regular British troops.  In fact one Army unit, the Sixth Infantry Regiment’s unit motto is “regulars by god”. It’s from the Battle of Chippewa during the War of 1812 when a unit dressed in militia uniform mounted a steady attack on British positions.  The British Commander is reputed to have said when observing the demeanor of the American troops, “Those are regulars, by god”.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 17, 2022)

White 6 said:


> They are famous for their neutrality.  We are not.  I have only been there a couple of times, finding it beautiful and high priced.  I do not know how their militia functions.  We do have absolute gun nuts here.  The National Guard is trained to Army Standards and is quite well regulated.  You have no idea what is in those vaults every small, middle sized town and large city.  The security usually has to be quite tight, just to keep stuff from walking away.  I have been a report of survey investigating officer, recovering material in some of the worst neighborhoods in cities, where police insisted I have police backup just to go investigate and recover.  Your idea will not work here, and you definitely do not want these people running around with your full auto weapons on their own recognizance.


The NG keeps its weapons in the arms room of their armories.  As further security measures, the firing pins are kept under tight security an another location and the ammunition is in a third location.  To steal functioning weapons, thieves would have to rob two out of three secure locations.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 17, 2022)

IamZ said:


> No they walked in to churches and bars and said join or die. Try a again commie


That’s stupid.  There were three groups in the colonies, one third supported the British, another third supported the patriots and the third called a pox on both their houses.  So join or die was a myth.


----------



## White 6 (Apr 17, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Who said anything about sending a majority or all of a state's National Guard personnel overseas at the same time or at any time?  The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the authority to send a single militia member overseas.  Not all, not the majority, and NOT ONE.  The National Guard is regular army reserve and subject to deployment overseas and are often sent overseas.  This means that the National Guard is NOT the militia.  Your post is pure nonsense.


The Army Reserve is the Army Reserve.  They have no state mission.  Unlikely you will convince anyone.


----------



## White 6 (Apr 17, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> The NG keeps its weapons in the arms room of their armories.  As further security measures, the firing pins are kept under tight security an another location and the ammunition is in a third location.  To steal functioning weapons, thieves would have to rob two out of three secure locations.


Kept in vault in arms room, yes.  Firing pins in another location, no.  Limited ammo if any stored at most armories at any one given time, unless going to the range.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 17, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> It is exactly what "government interest" means here.


Self-preservation and self-expansion are not valid government interests.




woodwork201 said:


> And there are no "government interest" exceptions to the Constitution.  It doesn't matter if it saves one life or a million lives, the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.


True.  But the Supreme Court created the rule and has been using it for all our rights for decades now.

Adherence to the rule will still strike down a lot of bad gun laws, so I'll take it.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In your personal, subjective, and irrelevant view.


The Constitution is neither personal, nor subjective, nor irrelevant.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The only definition of the militia that matters is what the courts decide – ultimately the Supreme Court.


That is incorrect.  It matters what the Constitution says.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But you’re entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong.


The good news is, I'm not wrong.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 18, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Self-preservation and self-expansion are not valid government interests.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It also will allow many gun control laws to stand.  I won't take it.  

I take the Constitution, according to original intent and definition of the words in it.  I do not support the Courts violating the Constitution in things that make my life better or in things that make my life worse - because, in the end, every time the Court violates the Constitution it makes liberty disappear.


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 18, 2022)

White 6 said:


> The Army Reserve is the Army Reserve.  They have no state mission.  Unlikely you will convince anyone.


You make it sound like I'm the only one saying the National Guard is not the militia.  It's a fact.  No one will ever convince you that the Constitution rules because you don't care.  I don't really care whether I convince you or not; I never expect to convince you.  I simply state the truth and the facts and back it up with the Constitution and with original intent.  

Your mind is narrow and basically closed but for others who might have an open mind and read the logic and Constitution and who come to these forums looking for answers, I might influence one.  Otherwise, not one of the regulars here is ever going to convince another regular, on the opposite side of things, of anything.


----------



## Failzero (Apr 18, 2022)

WinterBorn said:


> Thank you.
> 
> So many people try to make the word "militia" into a standing army.    It isn't.    It is citizens picking up their own arms to defend their nation in a time of need.   What kind of lunatic would invade a nation with +400 guns in private citizen's hands.     Hitler and Yamamoto knew that.


Yet democrats think NG / Military & Leo’s Will side with the Communists / Marxists / Socialists if it all goes down


----------



## woodwork201 (Apr 18, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Yet democrats think NG / Military & Leo’s Will side with the Communists / Marxists / Socialists if it all goes down


The Guard, Military, and LEO will side with the communists and marxists when it all goes down.  Don't be fooled into thinking that these groups are the same groups of 40 or 50 years ago.  They are not.  These groups are controlled and staffed by woke, liberal, LGBTQ+-allied, Antifa militants these days.  There are men wearing skirts in the Army today.


----------



## White 6 (Apr 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You make it sound like I'm the only one saying the National Guard is not the militia.  It's a fact.  No one will ever convince you that the Constitution rules because you don't care.  I don't really care whether I convince you or not; I never expect to convince you.  I simply state the truth and the facts and back it up with the Constitution and with original intent.
> 
> Your mind is narrow and basically closed but for others who might have an open mind and read the logic and Constitution and who come to these forums looking for answers, I might influence one.  Otherwise, not one of the regulars here is ever going to convince another regular, on the opposite side of things, of anything.


You don't seem like an influential type to me.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> It also will allow many gun control laws to stand.  I won't take it.
> 
> I take the Constitution, according to original intent and definition of the words in it.  I do not support the Courts violating the Constitution in things that make my life better or in things that make my life worse - because, in the end, every time the Court violates the Constitution it makes liberty disappear.


Another example of the right’s willful ignorance of the law, the right’s contempt for the rule of law, and the right’s disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 19, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Kept in vault in arms room, yes.  Firing pins in another location, no.  Limited ammo if any stored at most armories at any one given time, unless going to the range.


My reserve unit kept its firing pins at another location.  The only operational weapons we had in the arms room were the M-1911A1s we had.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 19, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> Obviously, there are rational conditions on any "right".


All rights are subject to limits and restrictions, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – whether those limits and restrictions are rational or not may be subject to debate.

That a limit or restriction of a right might not be rational doesn’t necessarily make it un-Constitutional; some firearm regulatory measures are certainly misguided and ineffective, such as magazine capacity restrictions (some may perceive them as not being rational), but they don’t violate the Second Amendment.


----------



## White 6 (Apr 19, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> My reserve unit kept its firing pins at another location.  The only operational weapons we had in the arms room were the M-1911A1s we had.


Never been in the Army Reserves.  Commanded to Armor Units in the Guard that did not seperate the firing pins from the weapons.  Long after retired, was called in for logistic support as a contractor and was over the arms rooms of two different units at three locations, and over the inventories.  Nothing had changed.  I even picked up weapons at state HQ for transport to the unit.  They were fully functional when I picked them up and fully functional when I locked them in the racks in the vault back at the unit. 
You could say I am unfamiliar with US Army Reserve SOP in that regard.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Apr 19, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Well regulated militia can be created on the basis of the police. The US police are subordinate to the state and independent of the federals. Armed male can be trained by the police, and participate in police operations as an auxiliary force. This is the shortest way to create a militia.
> The constitution says that the creation of a militia *is necessary*.


Breaking new ground?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Apr 19, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> All rights are subject to limits and restrictions, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment


and even more so where the first amendment is concerned right?



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> – whether those limits and restrictions are rational or not may be subject to debate.


It is not rational to limit and restrict constitutional freedom, they are enshrined to eliminate debate on them



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That a limit or restriction of a right might not be rational doesn’t necessarily make it un-Constitutional; some firearm regulatory measures are certainly misguided and ineffective, such as magazine capacity restrictions (some may perceive them as not being rational), but they don’t violate the Second Amendment.


The great thing about all this is that the people get to decide all this and not the infringing congress of an authoritarian government.
the constitution makes it PERFECTLY CLEAR that owning firearms cannot be infringed upon as doing so would be unconstitutional.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 21, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> > it seems a sure thing Justice Kavanaugh is writing the _NYSRPA_ majority opinion,
> ...


It's not Kavanaugh.  He just released his majority opinion from the November sitting.

It's not Sotomayor either.  She as well just released her majority opinion from the November sitting.  There wasn't much chance that it was her anyway, but it's nice to know for sure that it's not.

New York Rifle is now the only case from November to not have a ruling issued yet.

Thomas and Barrett are the only justices to have not issued a majority opinion from November yet.


----------



## ding (Apr 21, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> Well regulated militia can be created on the basis of the police. The US police are subordinate to the state and independent of the federals. Armed male can be trained by the police, and participate in police operations as an auxiliary force. This is the shortest way to create a militia.
> The constitution says that the creation of a militia *is necessary*.
> View attachment 594923


I don't know if anyone has already mentioned this but that's not what well regulated means in the 2nd.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 22, 2022)

Abatis said:


> We will see . . .


I think the majority opinion is written by Amy Coney Barrett.

Either Thomas or Barrett wrote the majority opinion in the gun case.  The other was assigned to write the majority opinion in _Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson_, and then lost supporting votes to something written by Gorsuch.

I'm guessing that it was Thomas who had _Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson_ and lost it to Gorsuch.

_"Judgment: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on December 10, 2021. Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined the opinion in full, and Justice Thomas joined except for Part II-C. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined."_




__





						Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson - SCOTUSblog
					

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court




					www.scotusblog.com
				




It's not definite.  It is always possible that Barrett was the one who lost _Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson_ to Gorsuch.  But she supported Gorsuch's opinion in full, whereas Thomas only supported it in part so clearly had a differing view.


----------



## Open Bolt (Apr 22, 2022)

Abatis said:


> We will see . . .











						Amy Coney Barrett on Guns
					






					firearmslaw.duke.edu


----------

