# The rules of organizing milita



## rupol2000 (Dec 4, 2021)

2nd Amendment  provides the creation of the state militia to defend the rights of the people of the state. What is the mechanism for creating such a militia, is it stipulated somewhere? Could it be a spontaneous militia, should its creation first be discussed at the level of the State Council, or should there be a plebescite. Is this mechanism regulated by the law? What are the rules for the legal formation of a militia?


----------



## lg325 (Dec 4, 2021)

Gov. Desantis is creating one here in Florida.    This may help.               desantis militia - Bing


----------



## Confederate Soldier (Dec 4, 2021)

It's simple.


drink a little bit, have guns, decided to form a militia. Get sober, realise what you've done, but you still like the idea, so now you're in a militia.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> 2nd Amendment  provides the creation of the state militia to defend the rights of the people of the state. What is the mechanism for creating such a militia, is it stipulated somewhere? Could it be a spontaneous militia, should its creation first be discussed at the level of the State Council, or should there be a plebescite. Is this mechanism regulated by the law? What are the rules for the legal formation of a militia?




You don't get it. The Militia is the whole of the People.


The rest is you looking for excuses to undermine the Freedom and Power of the People.


Why are you opposed to the People having Power?


----------



## JGalt (Dec 4, 2021)

Confederate Soldier said:


> It's simple.
> 
> 
> drink a little bit, have guns, decided to form a militia. Get sober, realise what you've done, but you still like the idea, so now you're in a militia.



Most states already have unorganized militias. Why shouldn't the states just legitimize them, pay for their ammunition, and pay for their booze?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 4, 2021)

Militia simply means armed civilians who band together for a common goal. No rules of formation.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Militia simply means armed civilians who band together for a common goal. No rules of formation.




But that doesn't work for him. He wants an excuse to stop the ones who he doesn't like.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 4, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> 2nd Amendment  provides the creation of the state militia to defend the rights of the people of the state. What is the mechanism for creating such a militia, is it stipulated somewhere? Could it be a spontaneous militia, should its creation first be discussed at the level of the State Council, or should there be a plebescite. Is this mechanism regulated by the law? What are the rules for the legal formation of a militia?


§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.



			https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws (Dec 4, 2021)

Confederate Soldier said:


> It's simple.
> 
> 
> drink a little bit, have guns, decided to form a militia. Get sober, realise what you've done, but you still like the idea, so now you're in a militia.


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws (Dec 4, 2021)

Militia's are easily made/created, as long as it's done by someone in political office.

If a civilian creates a Militia, they call it "treason".


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 4, 2021)

Correll said:


> You don't get it. The Militia is the whole of the People.



Judge Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of District of Columbia vs Heller that the term "people" in other articles and amendments to the Constitution certainly refers to the entire "political community", while the Second Amendment refers specifically to the militia, which includes not all citizens, but only men of a certain age, capable of carrying weapons.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Judge Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of District of Columbia vs Heller that the term "people" in other articles and amendments to the Constitution certainly refers to the entire "political community", while the Second Amendment refers specifically to the militia, which includes not all citizens, but only men of a certain age, capable of carrying weapons.




Women do not have the Right to Bear Arms? How very old fashioned of you. Are they allowed to speak in public?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 4, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> 2nd Amendment  provides the creation of the state militiia....


It does no such thing.
The power to create state militia is held by the states; the federal government can specify the arming and training for same.
The federal government can, under certain, circumstances, federalize these state militia units.
None of this comes from the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 5, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> It does no such thing.
> The power to create state militia is held by the states; the federal government can specify the arming and training for same.
> The federal government can, under certain, circumstances, federalize these state militia units.
> None of this comes from the 2nd Amendment.


it looks like a fairy tale for children


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> Women do not have the Right to Bear Arms? How very old fashioned of you. Are they allowed to speak in public?


do you have information that they can join the state militia?


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 5, 2021)

By the way, when were women has allowed to own weapons?


----------



## Correll (Dec 5, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> do you have information that they can join the state militia?




Why should I answer your questions, when you don't answer mine?


----------



## surada (Dec 5, 2021)

lg325 said:


> Gov. Desantis is creating one here in Florida.    This may help.               desantis militia - Bing



Private armies are not American.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> Why should I answer your questions, when you don't answer mine?


I do not know what the law says, but I am against a woman being a military man, this is ridiculous and  harms the patriarchal traditions of our peoples.


----------



## Correll (Dec 5, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> I do not know what the law says, but I am against a woman being a military man, this is ridiculous and  harms the patriarchal traditions of our peoples.




Women get left at home, when the men go off to fight. That woman should have a gun to protect herself and her children. 

ANYONE OR ANY LAW, that says otherwise, is morally and ethically wrong.


----------



## Flash (Dec 5, 2021)

surada said:


> Private armies are not American.


Militias are not private armies.

Here is a great example of a militia being formed and opposing government tyranny.


----------



## Papageorgio (Dec 5, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> I do not know what the law says, but I am against a woman being a military man, this is ridiculous and  harms the patriarchal traditions of our peoples.


Can they hold jobs? Drive? Vote? Is barefoot and pregnant they way it’s supposed to be?


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> Women get left at home, when the men go off to fight. That woman should have a gun to protect herself and her children.
> 
> ANYONE OR ANY LAW, that says otherwise, is morally and ethically wrong.


I know that they were allowed to serve in the army in 2016,  but this is the federal army

Does the US have a law that allows women to own weapons and participate in militias?


----------



## Correll (Dec 5, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> I know that they were allowed to serve in the army in 2016,  but this is the federal army
> 
> Does the US have a law that allows women to own weapons and participate in militias?




I don't care. YOu try to take my wife's gun away, so that she cannot defend herself or our child while I am away, and we got us a problem.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> I don't care. YOu try to take my wife's gun away, so that she cannot defend herself or our child while I am away, and we got us a problem.


Has your wife acquired a weapon legally?


----------



## Opie (Dec 5, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Militia simply means armed civilians who band together for a common goal. No rules of formation.


This right here. The 3%ers, check them out. And you will get the idea


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> defend herself or our child



This is the man's task. It has always been this way and it worked. According to your logic, we should distribute rifled weapons to children. That's bullshit. These problems are generated not by the fact that a woman does not have a weapon, but by the fact that the leftish scum has spawned criminality.


----------



## Correll (Dec 5, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Has your wife acquired a weapon legally?



Who cares? You would rather a woman and a child be left alone defenseless?


----------



## Correll (Dec 5, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> This is the man's task. It has always been this way and it worked. According to your logic, we should distribute rifled weapons to children. That's bullshit. These problems are generated not by the fact that a woman does not have a weapon, but by the fact that the leftish scum has spawned criminality.




I agree that the criminals are the problem.  

Guns in the hands of the intended victims, is always part of the solution.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Dec 5, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> 2nd Amendment  provides the creation of the state militia to defend the rights of the people of the state. What is the mechanism for creating such a militia, is it stipulated somewhere? Could it be a spontaneous militia, should its creation first be discussed at the level of the State Council, or should there be a plebescite. Is this mechanism regulated by the law? What are the rules for the legal formation of a militia?



See Federalist numbers 28 and 46 by Hamilton and Madison. They explained the process of dealing with federal usurpers in great detail.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 5, 2021)

Correll said:


> I agree that the criminals are the problem.
> 
> Guns in the hands of the intended victims, is always part of the solution.


no, it means that instead of solving problems, you are treating the symptoms of the same problem with crazy  methods. Weapon possession is a responsibile deal and is used appropriately. Distribution of weapons to hysteric women and children is in itself a danger to society.
as a last resort, it can be legalized within the dwelling


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 5, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> it looks like a fairy tale for children


Your lack of meaningful, rational response, noted.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 5, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> 2nd Amendment  provides the creation of the state militia to defend the rights of the people of the state.



No, it doesn't.  The 2nd Amendment does not speak to militia in any *legal *manner, shape or form.  The 2nd Amendment has never been examined to inform on any aspect of militia organization or control.



rupol2000 said:


> What is the mechanism for creating such a militia, is it stipulated somewhere?



The authority to call-up, organize and command the citizens as militia is enumerated in the Constitution's grant of powers to Congress in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16 and Article 2, Section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution, establishing the President as Commander in Chief of the part of the militia in actual service to the nation.

Congress exercised that authority by enacting the *Militia Act of 1792* (made permanent in 1795). Congress repealed and superseded those Militia Acts in 1903 when it federalized the state militias and absorbed them into the National Guard. The Militia Act of 1903 eliminated the 1792 Act's impressment of militia service on the citizens.



rupol2000 said:


> Could it be a spontaneous militia, should its creation first be discussed at the level of the State Council, or should there be a plebescite.



Currently there is no legal mechanism for *any* entity (federal, state, local governments or the citizens themselves) to organize the general citizenry as militia (selective service notwithstanding).



rupol2000 said:


> Is this mechanism regulated by the law? What are the rules for the legal formation of a militia?



As I said, there is none . . .  The only legal "regulation" is there is no right for the citizens to form themselves as militia. Whatever laws that may be enacted that forbid the citizens to organize themselves as militia -- "_to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms_" -- do not violate any right retained / possessed by the citizen(s), see *Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)* and *DC v Heller* which reaffirmed _Presser_, saying:

"_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."​
.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 5, 2021)

Abatis said:


> No, it doesn't.  The 2nd Amendment does not speak to militia in any *legal *manner, shape or form.  The 2nd Amendment has never been examined to inform on any aspect of militia organization or control.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Militias have been around throughout recorded history. Militias are formed by individuals or cities or counties or States or Nations. Militias are simply a group of armed civilians. The Constitution affirms the Right to keep and bare arms and the Right to assemble. I believe that constitutes a defacto militia. The government may not legally pass legislation that violates the Constitution. The American Revolution, The War of 1812, and The American Civil War (both sides) was fought mostly by militias that were sometimes "federalized" and sometimes not.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 6, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The Constitution affirms the Right to keep and bare arms and the Right to assemble. I believe that constitutes a defacto militia. The government may not legally pass legislation that violates the Constitution.



I provided the case citations, you can either read the applicable law -_or not_- but the law doesn't require you to agree or "believe" it, for it to be true.

To voluntarily 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 a right to be claimed by the citizen under the Constitution.

Under the Constitution, armed bodies of citizens are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments.  That means a state law that forbids bodies of citizens to associate together as a military organization, to drill or parade with arms unless authorized by the law, do not violate the Constitution, or any right of the citizen secured by the Constitution (yes, including assembly).

Read _*Presser* and *DC v Heller*_ which, in 2008, reaffirmed this principle stated _Presser*.*_

.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> I provided the case citations, you can either read the applicable law -_or not_- but the law doesn't require you to agree or "believe" it, for it to be true.
> 
> To voluntarily 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 a right to be claimed by the citizen under the Constitution.
> 
> ...


Wrong. The Constitution trumps any law-including case law alleged precedent-passed by government at any level making them null void and without effect. That includes city county, State, and federal law.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 6, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Wrong. The Constitution trumps any law-including case law alleged precedent-passed by government at any level making them null void and without effect. That includes city county, State, and federal law.



When I read that  I envision you with your eyes squinted shut, fingers in your ears. shouting La, La, La, La, La at the top of your lungs.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> When I read that  I envision you with your eyes squinted shut, fingers in your ears. shouting La, La, La, La, La at the top of your lungs.


When I read what you wrote I see someone looking desperately for an excuse for government to throw out the Bill of Rights. Where exactly do you think that the Constitution restricts the formation of a militia to the State or federal governments? Militia is civilian; not military.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 6, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> When I read what you wrote I see someone looking desperately for an excuse for government to throw out the Bill of Rights.



LOL. I'm actually the person here that doesn't look to, or rely on, the Bill of Rights for my rights.



9thIDdoc said:


> Where exactly do you think that the Constitution restricts the formation of a militia to the State or federal governments? Militia is civilian; not military.



The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers, powers "We the People" have granted to government. That "We the People" conferred (surrendered) the power to call-up, organize, train and deploy _the citizens as militia_ to Congress, means that we can no longer claim any of those actions _as a right_.

Of course that principle flows in the opposite direction . . .  The powers that "We the People" have *retained* and withheld and *not *conferred to the care and control of government, government can claim no interest in.  Those retained powers are then called "rights", which are nothing more than "_exceptions to powers which are not granted_" to government (*Federalist 84*).  

While the militia is drawn from the citizenry, it is *not* citizens forming themselves into militia, independent of law; no right to such action survives for as long as the Constitution is in force . . . Which is why, _again_, a state law that forbids bodies of citizens to associate together as a military organization, to drill or parade with arms unless authorized by law, does not violate the Constitution, or any right of the citizen secured by the Constitution.

Again, read _*Presser* and *DC v Heller*_.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> No, it doesn't


"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Constitution, establishing the President as Commander in Chief of the part of the militia in actual service to the nation


it has nothing to do with the state militia


----------



## 1srelluc (Dec 6, 2021)

The first rule of organizing a militia is not to mention organizing a militia on a public forum because the next thing you know you have the FBI and all other manner of .gov "fellow enthusiasts" wanting to join.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> 2nd Amendment  provides the creation of the state militia to defend the rights of the people of the state. What is the mechanism for creating such a militia, is it stipulated somewhere? Could it be a spontaneous militia, should its creation first be discussed at the level of the State Council, or should there be a plebescite. Is this mechanism regulated by the law? What are the rules for the legal formation of a militia?


Why should a foreigner like you give a shit about our militia?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> It does no such thing.
> The power to create state militia is held by the states; the federal government can specify the arming and training for same.
> The federal government can, under certain, circumstances, federalize these state militia units.
> None of this comes from the 2nd Amendment.



It is a simple sentence and even with that, leftists either cant read it or they pretend not to understand it.....


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> our


I don't consider you an American. You are a parasite in the body of the American people.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> I know that they were allowed to serve in the army in 2016,  but this is the federal army
> 
> Does the US have a law that allows women to own weapons and participate in militias?


You are dumber than a box of hammers and a classic misogynist!  

Women have served in the Army for years!  In 2016, my daughter became a commissioned officer in the Army, following thousands of other women before her.  My daughter-in-law joined the Army in 2006, along side my son.

Every job (MOS) in the Army is open to women.

I should know.  I am a civilian, but recruit for the US Army via the internet.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> You are dumber than a box of hammers and a classic misogynist!
> 
> Women have served in the Army for years!  In 2016, my daughter became a commissioned officer in the Army, following thousands of other women before her.  My daughter-in-law joined the Army in 2006, along side my son.
> 
> ...


As far as I know, this was introduced under Obama. Perhaps the Army previously had women as servants with shoulder straps, for example, she could carry coffee, but this is not about real military positions.
Incidentally, it was at this time that the United States lost its military positions in Eastern Europe, reducing the missile defense.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> I don't consider you an American. You are a parasite in the body of the American people.


You don't know what I consider you to be!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> As far as I know, this was introduced under Obama. Perhaps the Army previously had women as servants with shoulder straps, for example, she could carry coffee, but this is not about real military positions.
> Incidentally, it was at this time that the United States lost its military positions in Eastern Europe, reducing the missile defense.



Google works or whatever internet search engine you use!  

"In 1970, women were finally allowed to rise to command roles in non-combat units, and women and men began training together."

"In 2013, women achieved full status in the military when they were granted the right to serve in direct ground combat roles."









						How Women Fought Their Way Into the U.S. Armed Forces
					

U.S. women served their country bravely during multiple wars. But once the fighting stopped, they were expected to step down.




					www.history.com
				




In June 2021, my daughter assumed command of an air assault combat unit from a male officer.  Her commander of the Sustainment Brigade is a female Lieutenant Colonel.

We lost our positions in Eastern Europe?   Is that why the US Army's 2nd Cavalry Division has bases in Poland?


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> "In 1970, women were finally allowed to rise to command roles in non-combat units, and women and men began training together."


Why didn't Reagan cancel this hipsterism?


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> In June 2021, my daughter assumed command of an air assault combat unit from a male officer. Her commander of the Sustainment Brigade is a female Lieutenant Colonel.



Who pays for additional personnel loss insurance after commanding a Barbie?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> LOL. I'm actually the person here that doesn't look to, or rely on, the Bill of Rights for my rights.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers, powers "We the People" have granted to government. That "We the People" conferred (surrendered) the power to call-up, organize, train and deploy the citizens as militia to Congress, means that we can no longer claim any of those actions as a right.*

Conferred does not mean surrendered. Nor does it state that *only *Congress (part of the federal government) can form militia. Congress has provided for the formation of the military who are employed by the federal government. Militia=civilians. Military=government employees. Throughout much of our past in many cases militia units (civilian) were "federalized" to become part of the military and government employees. 

*means that we can no longer claim any of those actions as a right.*
Means no such thing. The Constitution in the Bill of Rights lists the Rights of individual citizens. The Constitution gives certain specific powers to government. The government has no Rights and it certainly cannot take the Rights already given to the individual citizen except through due process. 

*While the militia is drawn from the citizenry, it is not citizens forming themselves into militia, independent of law; no right to such action survives for as long as the Constitution is in force . .*

Obviously untrue. As noted the vast majority of militia units were *NOT* formed by government or by Congress. You continue to confuse militia with regular military. Two entirely different things.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"



I am quite aware of what the 2nd Amendment says and I understand that the declaratory clause is merely a statement of principle.  It reaffirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; 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).  

As I said; "the 2nd Amendment does not speak to militia in any *legal *manner, shape or form.  The 2nd Amendment has never been examined to inform on any aspect of militia organization or control."

I am talking about _actual legal effect_, not any mystical effect that no court has ever recognized and only collectivist political activists have advanced.  No court has ever used the 2nd Amendment to inform upon any question about militia powers or to settle any disputes on militia issues between states and the federal government.  

The lines of militia law and RKBA/2ndA law are entirely different and separate.  The cases where SCOTUS decided militia issues are a separate and distinct track from the Court's RKBA/2ndA cases.  

If your theory had any truth to it, there would be some overlap, the Supreme Court would been seen citing the 2nd Amendment for some instruction or direction on how to decide militia issues . . .  But there is NOTHING, in fact, the Supreme Court only mentioned the 2nd Amendment once in its militia cases, it was _the very first one_, in 1820, in a dissent by Justice Story, to only say the 2nd Amendment offered NOTHING to inform the Court on militia issues.

I am aware that you are in crowded company of uninformed people who hang all kinds of adornments and gingerbread on the 2nd Amendment, to make a perverse political argument that it does something it does not.

You should stop doing that.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Why didn't Reagan cancel this hipsterism?


Why should he?  It's not hipsterism, which by the way, is an archaic term.  He was not a misogynist like you and appointed the first female justice to the Supreme Court.

I was assigned to my first ship in the Navy in 1979.  My ship was the first to have a female ship's doctor! Coincidentally, I was her first patient!

All but one of my current specialists are women, yet every surgeon I have had was male, as is my primary care physician and endocrinologist.  My endocrinologist has a female physician's assistant that I see fairly often too.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Who pays for additional personnel loss insurance after commanding a Barbie?


What the fuck does that mean?  Find someone who speaks English to help you with your posts.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> began training together


How is this technically possible? Why would I, for example, spar with a woman if it is no different from sparring with an ant and I might accidentally crush her? Who will be responsible if I accidentally kill her during sparring?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> I am quite aware of what the 2nd Amendment says and I understand that the declaratory clause is merely a statement of principle.  It reaffirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; 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).
> 
> As I said; "the 2nd Amendment does not speak to militia in any *legal *manner, shape or form.  The 2nd Amendment has never been examined to inform on any aspect of militia organization or control."
> 
> ...


Rupol is a paid Russian poster.  He cannot speak English, so he uses translation services on the internet.  He has some incredibly wrong ideas about our military in general.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 6, 2021)

_WACs, WAVES, and WASPS










						wacs and waves - Google Search
					





					www.google.com
				



1942 saw the creation of the first service branches for women in the military beyond nursing, the Women's Auxillary Army Corps (WAAC) and_ its naval analog, the Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service (WAVES) and airborn division, the Women's Auxiliary Ferrying Squadron (WAFS). ...

I served in the US Army in '69 and later I served and trained with women.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Why should he?


because Republicans do not tolerate women who walk away from their kitchen duties by mimicking a man.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> How is this technically possible? Why would I, for example, spar with a woman if it is no different from sparring with an ant and I might accidentally crush her? Who will be responsible if I accidentally kill her during sparring?


My daughter is an amateur boxer and would kick your ass from here to Sunday.  She spars with men! She also rappels better than about 99% of other soldiers because she loves doing it!

You keep forgetting that other then special operations, hand-to-hand combat means you have already lost.  We discussed this before.  You think you are some kind of macho man, but I suspect you are a 98 pound weakling who never served in the military.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> because Republicans do not tolerate women who walk away from their kitchen duties by mimicking a man.


Bullshit!  You have some very 1950's attitudes about women.

My wife makes more money at her job than I do, and I would never disrespect her the way you talk about women.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> What the fuck does that mean?  Find someone who speaks English to help you with your posts.


I think that you do not understand them because of the low IQ.

I ask, who is taking on the additional risks that come from Barbie girls trying to command army units instead of officers? Is it clear now?


----------



## Abatis (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> it has nothing to do with the state militia



Maybe you should try actually reading the Constitution?  

The President is Commander in Chief of the part of the (state) militia when they are called into service of the nation.  The same goes for Congress' power to "govern" the militia, the federal power to "govern" only becomes actionable when and for those specific militia corps that are called into service of the nation.

Interestingly, the legal status of militia members who commit a crime is altered when their units are called into service of the nation.  They fall under the UCMJ, not regular law and they loose their 5th Amendment (grand jury) rights .  

Being called into service of the nation changes everything and deciding that specific moment, led to many disputes between the states and federal government (none of which were decided by examining the 2nd Amendment).


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Bullshit!  You have some very 1950's attitudes about women.
> 
> My wife makes more money at her job than I do, and I would never disrespect her the way you talk about women.


This suggests that you are an infantile henpecked


----------



## Abatis (Dec 6, 2021)

1srelluc said:


> The first rule of organizing a militia is not to mention organizing a militia on a public forum because the next thing you know you have the FBI and all other manner of .gov "fellow enthusiasts" wanting to join.



Virginia is unique in that there is an allowance to form a militia (although still directed by state law).


9thIDdoc said:


> *The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers, powers "We the People" have granted to government. That "We the People" conferred (surrendered) the power to call-up, organize, train and deploy the citizens as militia to Congress, means that we can no longer claim any of those actions as a right.*
> 
> Conferred does not mean surrendered. Nor does it state that *only *Congress (part of the federal government) can form militia. Congress has provided for the formation of the military who are employed by the federal government. Militia=civilians. Military=government employees. Throughout much of our past in many cases militia units (civilian) were "federalized" to become part of the military and government employees.
> 
> ...



You have a head of cement.  Now you are denying what are the most foundational principles of the Republic.

.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Maybe you should try actually reading the Constitution?
> 
> The President is Commander in Chief of the part of the (state) militia when they are called into service of the nation. The same goes for Congress' power to "govern" the militia, the federal power to "govern" only becomes actionable when and for those specific militia corps that are called into service of the nation.


Yes, everything is correct here. I just misunderstood you, sorry.
In this case, they act as the federal army, the combined forces of the federation.

This suggests that the federal army is not needed at all, the state militias can do everything.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> I think that you do not understand them because of the low IQ.
> 
> I ask, who is taking on the additional risks that come from Barbie girls trying to command army units instead of officers? Is it clear now?


Much better wording and easier to understand, but just as stupid.  My daughter is an exceptional commander.  She replaced a male Captain as commander.  Calling them Barbie girls is just a testament to your misogyny.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> My daughter is an amateur boxer and would kick your ass from here to Sunday. She spars with men! She also rappels better than about 99% of other soldiers because she loves doing it!


lol


Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> You keep forgetting that other then special operations, hand-to-hand combat means you have already lost. We discussed this before. You think you are some kind of macho man, but I suspect you are a 98 pound weakling who never served in the military.


In the army of my country, ordinary guys serve, they don't do anything special there, just stupid drill.
Therefore, this is generally not an indicator.
I had a good panch, I sent the guys to the hospital several times, and I played chess well, so I think I have military qualities.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> but I suspect you are a 98 pound weakling who never served in the military.


I served, in our army, but there is nothing special, even in the special forces, a woman could serve there, they just jog and do exercises, they teach little there.
If someone on the street yells that he served in the airborne assault and therefore I should be afraid of him, I laugh. I did boxing and kickboxing, I know that their hand-to-hand combat is only in their fantasies, they can not do anything. The same goes for the functional. The maximum is that they can do a couple of exits by force on the bar.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> served in the military


There are such divisions as sports companies, from which sports teams were formed earlier. I don't know what the point was, but a friend of mine served in such a company. He said that the threshold for entering there seemed to be a few jerks of a 24 kg kettlebell and several rises with a coup on the bar. They went in for kettlebell lifting there, and their kettlebells were 24 kg. This is a woman's weight in  kettlebell lifting. 32 they did not use.

I use weight 40


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

In the mass armies of the Prussian type, women are not used not because of special requirements for soldiers, they are simply needed for childbearing, so their lives are more valuable.
And what they show in the promo videos is just a means to attract conscripts, because they can find loopholes so as not to go to the army.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Virginia is unique in that there is an allowance to form a militia (although still directed by state law).
> 
> 
> You have a head of cement.  Now you are denying what are the most foundational principles of the Republic.
> ...


No, that would be you. You are denying recorded history. Militias existed long before the republic or the Constitution. The people who wrote the Constitution had just used them to make the new republic. The UCMJ (Uniform Code of *Military* Justice) doesn't apply to militias because militias are civilian; not military until and unless federalized at which time they become military rather than militia.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> lol
> 
> In the army of my country, ordinary guys serve, they don't do anything special there, just stupid drill.
> Therefore, this is generally not an indicator.
> I had a good panch, I sent the guys to the hospital several times, and I played chess well, so I think I have military qualities.


How is being fat a good military quality?  The word is "punch" I hope is what you meant to type.

In other words, you have no experience and talk out of your ass!  That's exactly what I thought all along!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> In the mass armies of the Prussian type, women are not used not because of special requirements for soldiers, they are simply needed for childbearing, so their lives are more valuable.
> And what they show in the promo videos is just a means to attract conscripts, because they can find loopholes so as not to go to the army.


You cannot compare your early 20th century style military with our professional and modern military.  You are full of shit!


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 6, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> You cannot compare your early 20th century style military with our professional and modern military.  You are full of shit!


I'm talking about European armies, they are unprofessional, jerk


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> I'm talking about European armies, they are unprofessional, jerk


Your OP is about organizing militia.  That was answered in about the first 5 replies.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> 2nd Amendment provides the creation of the state militia to defend the rights of the people of the state.


Incorrect.

The 2nd Amendment bans federal (at least) authority over the right of the people.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Dec 6, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"


a clause that has no other operation but to state a purpose.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 6, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> No, that would be you. You are denying recorded history. Militias existed long before the republic or the Constitution.



But _*AFTER*_ the Constitution was ratified, the formation, organization and structure of the militia, essentially the militia's _entire existence_ was altered, codified by and under the federal Constitution.  The doctrine of preemption demands that no other entities can exercise the militia organization and command powers conferred to and claimed by the federal government, including any effort of the citizens, independent of law, to organize and deploy citizens as militia (see _Presser_).  Once the Militia Act of 1792/95 became law, that law was the only lawful process for anyone to call-up and organize the citizens as militia. 

The Supreme Court explained federal preemption of militia powers:

"Upon the subject of the militia. Congress has exercised the powers conferred on that body by the constitution, as fully as was thought right, and has thus excluded the power of legislation by the States on these subjects, except so far as it has been permitted by Congress . . . ."  -- _Houston v.  Moore_ 18 U.S. (5 Wheaton) 1, 24 (1820)​ 



9thIDdoc said:


> The UCMJ (Uniform Code of *Military* Justice) doesn't apply to militias because militias are civilian; not military until and unless federalized at which time they become military rather than militia.



For the criminal prosecution of, "a capital, or otherwise infamous crime", the 5th Amendment excludes "the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger", from the grand jury presentment right, and dispenses justice to those militia the same as the federal "land or naval forces" (under the UCMJ).  

The 5th Amendment says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; . . . "​
I'm not sure what more we have to discuss; you have your beliefs that rely on the denial of the existence and enforcement of well-established, settled law and long-standing Supreme Court determinations.

I never realized how powerful such self-delusion could be.

I've been enjoying the gun debate since 1993 and I never thought to just deny the existence of the lower federal court's "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations.  So, while those decisions served to legally invalidate any recognition and protection of the individual citizen's right to arms under the 2nd Amendment, all I had to do to win the debates back then was deny those rulings existed.

Wow, here I thought _Heller_ really meant something!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> But _*AFTER*_ the Constitution was ratified, the formation, organization and structure of the militia, essentially the militia's _entire existence_ was altered, codified by and under the federal Constitution.  The doctrine of preemption demands that no other entities can exercise the militia organization and command powers conferred to and claimed by the federal government, including any effort of the citizens, independent of law, to organize and deploy citizens as militia (see _Presser_).  Once the Militia Act of 1792/95 became law, that law was the only lawful process for anyone to call-up and organize the citizens as militia.
> 
> The Supreme Court explained federal preemption of militia powers:
> 
> ...


Your inability to read for comprehension is laughable.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> But _*AFTER*_ the Constitution was ratified, the formation, organization and structure of the militia, essentially the militia's _entire existence_ was altered, codified by and under the federal Constitution.  The doctrine of preemption demands that no other entities can exercise the militia organization and command powers conferred to and claimed by the federal government, including any effort of the citizens, independent of law, to organize and deploy citizens as militia (see _Presser_).  Once the Militia Act of 1792/95 became law, that law was the only lawful process for anyone to call-up and organize the citizens as militia.
> 
> The Supreme Court explained federal preemption of militia powers:
> 
> ...


Neither the courts nor any other part of the government can legally change Constitutional law except through the Amendment process. The Constitution does not reserve the right to form a militia to the federal or State. If it intended to do so it would have stated so plainly. It does not. Nor would the practice have continued unchallenged to the current day. 





__





						The Volunteer State Goes to War: A Salute to Tennessee Veterans
					





					sharetngov.tnsosfiles.com
				



_While it is difficult to ascertain exactly how many Tennesseans participated in the War of 1812, it would be safe to assume that up to 20,000 men served at one time or another during the conflict. *Most these men served as volunteers or in the militia, while others saw action in the U.S. Regular Army.*
As volunteers and members of local militia, many Tennessean soldiers both distrusted and feared Native Americans and disliked British intervention and aggression in America. Many were also motivated by the opportunity for adventure, a chance to get away from domestic life, and a sense of patriotic duty. Upon enlistment, soldiers elected their officers, usually the wealthiest and most popular men among them._


----------



## Abatis (Dec 6, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Neither the courts nor any other part of the government can legally change Constitutional law except through the Amendment process. The Constitution does not reserve the right to form a militia to the federal or State. If it intended to do so it would have stated so plainly. It does not. Nor would the practice have continued unchallenged to the current day.



Current day?  Where is the militia today?

Congress executed / extinguished the clause 15 & 16 militia in 1903 and absorbed the state militias into the clause 12 National Guard.

What are you referring to as "the practice" that continues "unchallenged to the current day"?



9thIDdoc said:


> _While it is difficult to ascertain exactly how many Tennesseans participated in the War of 1812, it would be safe to assume that up to 20,000 men served at one time or another during the conflict. *Most these men served as volunteers or in the militia, while others saw action in the U.S. Regular Army.*_



Is that supposed to prove something or rebut something I said?



9thIDdoc said:


> _As volunteers and members of local militia, many Tennessean soldiers both distrusted and feared Native Americans and disliked British intervention and aggression in America. Many were also motivated by the opportunity for adventure, a chance to get away from domestic life, and a sense of patriotic duty. Upon enlistment, soldiers elected their officers, usually the wealthiest and most popular men among them._



Sounds like the Militia Act was being followed. Your point?

.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Current day?  Where is the militia today?
> 
> Congress executed / extinguished the clause 15 & 16 militia in 1903 and absorbed the state militias into the clause 12 National Guard.
> 
> ...


 The point is that the Constitution had long been ratified and Congress did not form or regulate the militias mentioned until and unless they were federalized and became military.
The Constitution forms and regulates government not the other way around. Government-including Congress and the judicial system-has no legal authority other than what is granted to it by the Constitution. Congress cannot legally vote itself powers not expressly permitted by the Constitution. Where exactly does the Constitution state that government and only specific parts of government can form and regulate militia? 
*mi·li·tia *(definition)

*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*

You and others have claimed that all States have laws that prohibit all but State and Federal governments from forming and regulating militias. But the laws quoted would do no such thing. Even if they did such laws have not been deemed legal by the Supreme Court and remain unchallenged. There are many militias present in America currently that were not government formed approved or regulated and have never been charged with criminal activity. Why not?


----------



## Abatis (Dec 7, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The point is that the Constitution had long been ratified and Congress did not form or regulate the militias mentioned until and unless they were federalized and became military.



Have you gone your entire life not once examining the work of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention and familiarized yourself with the debates over the creation and ratification of the Constitution?

You appear to be operating only under some alternate reality you have constructed yourself, employing sources known only to you, devoid of any real information, failing to garner the most rudimentary knowledge base.  It's almost as if you have purposefully tried to avoid recognizing true history and law.



9thIDdoc said:


> Where exactly does the Constitution state that government and only specific parts of government can form and regulate militia?



Aren't you tired of me citing the same stuff over and over again?  I sure know I'm tired of writing it.

Again for what the 6th or 8th time?

*Article I, Section 8. clauses 15 & 16*

Article I, §8: "The Congress shall have Power; . . . "​​clause 15: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"​​clause 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 phrase "to provide for" means the power to legislate over all aspects of the interests named.  This grant of power, damn near total control over the militias of the states, was of course controversial and led to much debate.

Have you ever read *Federalist 29*?



9thIDdoc said:


> You and others have claimed that all States have laws that prohibit all but State and Federal governments from forming and regulating militias. But the laws quoted would do no such thing.



I have only quoted laws that do just that and employed terms like "supremacy" and "preemption", that describe that effect.

This link goes to a decent explanation of the history of federal preemption of militia powers that doesn't get too into legalese, even though it is the Heritage Foundation it is very straightforward:

>>(CLICK)>>>>>Organizing the Militia<<<<<(CLICK)<<​
As it notes, federal preemption of militia powers (IOW, _total_ federal control, squashing out any and all competing powers) happened so early in our history it stands as unquestioned now (except by you).



9thIDdoc said:


> Even if they did such laws have not been deemed legal by the Supreme Court and remain unchallenged.



And now for what, the 6th time, here I am linking to and urging you to read _*US v Presser*_ . . . Again, those laws *do* exist, they *were* challenged, the question of their constitutionality  *was *settled so long ago, it stands as unquestionable, reaffirmed by SCOTUS in 2008 in a most _matter of fact_ way.

Again, here's _Heller_ (2008) reaffirming _Presser_ (1886):

_"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. . . . "​
Did you read it this time?????

Did you comprehend what it says?

Laws that forbid private citizens to assemble armed and do "militia" shit, do not violate the 2nd Amendment and no one supporting the individual right to arms interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups.

The laws that you argue don't exist, _do exist_ and yes, _they have been challenged_ and yes, _they have been upheld and deemed constitutional_ by SCOTUS.



9thIDdoc said:


> There are many militias present in America currently that were not government formed approved or regulated and have never been charged with criminal activity. Why not?



That there hasn't been any enforcement action against private citizen militias does not mean that the power doesn't exist to forbid them, bar all such activity and prosecute those citizens for engaging in said activity.

.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 7, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Have you gone your entire life not once examining the work of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention and familiarized yourself with the debates over the creation and ratification of the Constitution?
> 
> You appear to be operating only under some alternate reality you have constructed yourself, employing sources known only to you, devoid of any real information, failing to garner the most rudimentary knowledge base.  It's almost as if you have purposefully tried to avoid recognizing true history and law.
> 
> ...


_*Article I, Section 8. clauses 15 & 16

Article I, §8: "The Congress shall have Power; . . . "

clause 15: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

clause 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 phrase "to provide for" means the power to legislate over all aspects of the interests named. This grant of power, damn near total control over the militias of the states, was of course controversial and led to much debate.*

I have not claimed that government had no such power. I have asked you to show where *only* the government has the authority to form militia units and you have spectacularly failed to do so. Nothing in Article 1 as quoted above makes any such claim. There is no reason to believe "the militia" as referred to does not mean only those militias called up by State and Federal governments. This is supported by the part of clause 16 that states: ".._.and for governing such Part of them *as may be employed in the Service of the United States.".*_

*Again, those laws do exist, they were challenged, the question of their constitutionality  was settled so long ago, it stands as unquestionable, reaffirmed by SCOTUS in 2008 in a most matter of fact way.*

If that were true it would be a simple matter to quote such laws and SCOTUS ruling. You haven't. Why not? 
Laws against parading armed in the streets of towns and cities or gathering for the purpose of creating civil discord and/or violence and/or damage to property do not speak to the issue of the formation of militias. Straw man.

*As it notes, federal preemption of militia powers (IOW, total federal control, squashing out any and all competing powers) happened so early in our history it stands as unquestioned now (except by you).*

Untrue. The federal government does not have the authority to legally preempt powers not specified by the Constitution.  I ask again: Exactly where does the Constitution authorize such powers? You seem determined to continually ignore this question.

_*"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.”*

It also does not speak to the issue of who may form militias or anything outside of parading around cities and towns illegally. 

*Laws that forbid private citizens to assemble armed and do "militia" shit, do not violate the 2nd Amendment and no one supporting the individual right to arms interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups.*

Untrue and unproven.

History from all time periods is literally full of examples of militias that were formed trained and governed by other than State or federal government.
Andrew Jackson led volunteers and militia groups that were not formed trained or controlled by Congress. He soundly defeated Indian British and Spanish forces and thereby greatly the future of the United States. His force, the great majority of which were untrained unauthorized volunteers and militia, decisively defeated what was widely considered the best of the British army. You claim that doing so violated Federal law. But, other than being required to give a port city back to the Spanish, he was never charged for his "criminal" activity. Instead he was elected President. Go figger.

Law enforcement agencies everywhere are in fact militias raised trained and governed by cities counties etc. rather than just State or Federal government. You also want to claim law enforcement is illegal?


----------



## Abatis (Dec 7, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> I have not claimed that government had no such power. I have asked you to show where *only* the government has the authority to form militia units and you have spectacularly failed to do so.



No, I showed that.  You have failed to demonstrate the requisite understanding of basic constitutional principles like supremacy and preemption.



9thIDdoc said:


> Nothing in Article 1 as quoted above makes any such claim. There is no reason to believe "the militia" as referred to does not mean only those militias called up by State and Federal governments. This is supported by the part of clause 16 that states: ".._.and for governing such Part of them *as may be employed in the Service of the United States.".*_



Of course it does.

That _Congress shall have Power . . . to provide for calling forth the Militia . . . and provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia_, means nobody else can decree who among the citizenry is obligated to serve in the militia, or how enrollment will occur, or call-up the militia into service, or set the structure of militia organization and command, or declare how the militia is armed and what kinds of arms are appropriate for service, or to establish the regimen of training for the militia.

When Congress possess a power that means _any_ other entity (a state or the people) claiming, or attempting to exercise a competing power, to perform the same actions outlined in federal law, must yield and resign their claim -- or, as we have seen in SCOTUS militia cases, be forced to yield to the federal authority).



9thIDdoc said:


> *Again, those laws do exist, they were challenged, the question of their constitutionality  was settled so long ago, it stands as unquestionable, reaffirmed by SCOTUS in 2008 in a most matter of fact way.*
> 
> If that were true it would be a simple matter to quote such laws and SCOTUS ruling. You haven't. Why not?



Are you trying to be funny or just insufferably obstinate?

You never read _Presser_ did you?



9thIDdoc said:


> Laws against parading armed in the streets of towns and cities or gathering for the purpose of creating civil discord and/or violence and/or damage to property do not speak to the issue of the formation of militias. Straw man.



Talk about a straw man!!!!!!   Where in _Presser_ are the charges pertaining to "gathering for the purpose of creating civil discord and/or violence and/or damage to property" set-out?

The only thing Presser was charged with (and statutes that he challenged), "only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law."

The Court held:

"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."​
Can you please explain how that ruling authorizes private citizens to associate together as a military company or organization and/or form a militia composed of private citizens acting independently, without any government authorization?



9thIDdoc said:


> Untrue. The federal government does not have the authority to legally preempt powers not specified by the Constitution.



Well, that is a construct that is only a product of your mind . . .

"Professor Laurence H. Tribe identifies in Supreme Court jurisprudence three modes of federal preemption exercisable by Congress against the states:​​(1) "express preemption," where Congress has in so many words declared its intention to preclude state legislation of a described sort in a given area; (2) "implied preemption," where Congress, through the structure or objectives of its enactments has by implication precluded a certain kind of state regulation in an area; and (3) "conflict preemption," where Congress did not necessarily focus on preemption of state regulation at all, but where the particular state law conflicts directly with federal law, or otherwise (p.44) stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of federal statutory objectives.​​In addition, Professor Tribe recognizes:​​Because congressional purposes can be either substantive or jurisdictional, a state action may be struck down as an invalid interference with the federal design either because it is in substantive conflict with the operation of a federal regulation or program or because, whatever its substantive impact, it intrudes jurisdictionally upon a field that Congress has validly reserved for exclusively federal regulation. It is this latter phenomenon that some describe as field (or "occupying the field") preemption - which, it is worth stressing, may fall into any of the three categories set forth above.[12]"​

Quoted from; *Exposing the Second Amendment: Federal Preemption of State Militia Legislation*



9thIDdoc said:


> You seem determined to continually ignore this question.



You seem determined to continually ignore my answers and avoiding any review of the sources I provide links to.  It is hard to take you seriously when it is obvious you have no real interest in his subject and no real desire to discuss the principles and law at work here.  

You have your position staked out and will maintain it without regard to what is presented to you (primarily because you don't want to complicate things by reading what I link to).



9thIDdoc said:


> _*"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.”*
> 
> It also does not speak to the issue of who may form militias or anything outside of parading around cities and towns illegally.



And again, it is obvious you did not read the case.



9thIDdoc said:


> *Laws that forbid private citizens to assemble armed and do "militia" shit, do not violate the 2nd Amendment and no one supporting the individual right to arms interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups.*
> 
> Untrue and unproven.



I cited two SCOTUS cases for my proof, separated by 122 years on those points . . . 

What can you cite as legal proof of your belief, your wishful thinking?



9thIDdoc said:


> History from all time periods is literally full of examples of militias that were formed trained and governed by other than State or federal government.
> Andrew Jackson led volunteers and militia groups that were not formed trained or controlled by Congress. . . . .  But, other than being required to give a port city back to the Spanish, he was never charged for his "criminal" activity.



I never said the prohibition is criminal.  That your entire position and belief seems to be founded only in conjecture and invention, I guess I shouldn't be surprised you can not confine your comments to what I actually say .  To your point, by the War of 1812 the militia structure in the states was in total disorganization and neglect.  It isn't a surprise constitutional limits were not enforced; the federal government was completely derelict in forcing states to do what they were legally mandated to do by the Militia Act.  It was quite literally a free-for-all.

.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 7, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Law enforcement agencies everywhere are in fact militias raised trained and governed by cities counties etc. rather than just State or Federal government. You also want to claim law enforcement is illegal?



In the Civil War period and especially during Reconstruction, the nation witnessed horrible abuses where the official militia of states were used as law enforcement.  Congress' response was to disband the militias of those states.  

In the 20th Century we returned to a rigid legal definition of militia under US law.  As it stands _now _*federally*, (post Dick Act 1903 and National Defense Act of 1916) the definition of "militia" is codified / established in the U.S. Code; *10 U.S.C. §311*:


10 U.S.C. § 311:​​(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.​
Only the militia who are members of the NG can be considered organized; the _private_ male citizens between 17 and 45, are (and shall remain, by law) unorganized. 

There are no alternatives _under law_.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 7, 2021)

Abatis said:


> I provided the case citations, you can either read the applicable law -_or not_- but the law doesn't require you to agree or "believe" it, for it to be true.
> 
> To voluntarily 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 a right to be claimed by the citizen under the Constitution.
> 
> ...


*Wolverines Don't Parade*

Yet an unauthorized militia won the war that gave birth to that Constitution.  Whatever was done secretly from the British can be done secretly from the Globalist Government.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 7, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"


*Feralphiles' Constitution*

A disorganized thug army being necessary to the security of a free-stuff State.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 7, 2021)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *Wolverines Don't Parade*
> 
> Yet an unauthorized militia won the war that gave birth to that Constitution.



Certainly.  But many things done before the Constitution were altered once the Constitution was ratified.  Before the Constitution there was a naval militia sailing Man-o'-War's that were owned by and outfitted by private citizens (Privateers) and they laid waste to many tons of British shipping during the War.

After the War, the people granted Congress power over those warships in Article I, §8, cl. 11:

The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;​
Which allowed Privateers to sail and essentially, commit acts of piracy, to seize shipping.




The Sage of Main Street said:


> Whatever was done secretly from the British can be done secretly from the Globalist Government.



Only if you are willing to communicate the same ways the Continental Patriots did; if you use any sort of modern forms, the NSA is listening.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 7, 2021)

Abatis said:


> In the Civil War period and especially during Reconstruction, the nation witnessed horrible abuses where the official militia of states were used as law enforcement.  Congress' response was to disband the militias of those states.
> 
> In the 20th Century we returned to a rigid legal definition of militia under US law.  As it stands _now _*federally*, (post Dick Act 1903 and National Defense Act of 1916) the definition of "militia" is codified / established in the U.S. Code; *10 U.S.C. §311*:
> 
> ...


(a)*: The militia of the United States consists...*
Where is any statement that only the US federal government can form militia? Especially since it plainly states that all private citizens between 17 and 45 are unorganized militia?
Are you trying to claim that unorganized militia are not a type of militia or that they are a militia formed by Federal government. Either seems like a pretty silly claim.
What makes law enforcement agencies something other than militia? 

*There are no alternatives under law.*
So you claim but cannot prove. The reality is that there are many alternatives and always have been.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 7, 2021)

*Certainly. But many things done before the Constitution were altered once the Constitution was ratified.*

What exactly do you claim the ratified Constitution changed? Smoke and mirrors.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 8, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Only if you are willing to communicate the same ways the Continental Patriots did; if you use any sort of modern forms, the NSA is listening.


*Unlacing the Jackboot*

Illogical scare story.  First, the Globalist Imperial Government is full of incompetents.  Everybody else is in that same no-talent pencil-pushing clique in media and business, so no one breaks the code of silence about the massive incompetence that is the untold story of 9/11.

Besides, patriotic groups can take spur-of-the-moment actions that informers have no time to report to their agencies.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 8, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Where is any statement that only the US federal government can form militia? Especially since it plainly states that all private citizens between 17 and 45 are unorganized militia?



The "unorganized militia" wasn't created by Congress, not in 1789 or 1791 or even when those words were put into law in 1903; it existed before the Constitution. As you said, this general militia / armed citizen _principle_ has been in existence going back to ancient times. It was the *organized* militia that needed to be created, to have a command structure fixed, to have a regimen of training written, to have a standard of arms established . . .

If your read *Federalist 29* it clearly speaks of '_the militia_' as something already in existence in the American Colony; it was simply _every able-bodied free White citizen capable of bearing arms_.

Madison put that body of people at 25% of the "total number of souls" in the Colony, with about 75% of those men having "arms in their hands" in various degrees of organization, none standardized.

When Federalist 29 was published in 1788 (as a rebuttal to argument opposing cl's 15 & 16), *everyone* -- _especially those arguing against granting the power outlined in cl's 15 & 16_ -- understood that Congress _*alone*_ would possess the power to organize (or "form") the militia, that the states were surrendering that power.

Because that truth frightened many, the purpose of Federalist 29 was to allay those fears, even mock those oppositional arguments and explain what the powers _would_ be over the _organized_ militia if the Constitution was ratified.

Federalist 29 began this explanation with a clear and unambiguous mission statement for the "militia clauses" of the Constitution:

"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority."​
Right there in the opening paragraph of Federalist29, your BS belief is destroyed. The thought that there could be dozens of different schemes of organizing the militia, some by government, some not, but all useless, was why the power to orgainize the militia was being given to Congress.

 I can explain this stuff to you over and over again, I can ask you to read the source material over and over again, but I can't make you understand it.

From here on you will need to prove you have read Federalist 29 and are capable of conversing with some knowledge, understanding and competency of what *the framers understood clauses 15 & 16 to mean.  *

An even more complete understanding would be earned by you if you were to read the corresponding anti-Federalist Articles, arguing _against_ the Federalist position of strong central government control and _against_ the ratification of the Constitution.

Interestingly, (yet unsurprisingly), the specific anti-Federalist article arguing _against_ the proposed Constitution's Art I, §8, cl's. 15 & 16 giving Congress control of the militia, is titled:

OBJECTIONS TO NATIONAL CONTROL OF THE MILITIA​(yes, that is a link, you are supposed to click it and read it)​You need to accept that you aren't arguing against *my* personal opinion, you are arguing against what I have learned over 40 years pouring over the framers written words.

I don't need to prove I'm right, I just have to convince you to open a book and learn . . . Your continued refusal to read the source material and your pigheaded insistence in speaking from that ignorance, will not be acknowledged by me going forward.

.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 9, 2021)

Abatis said:


> The "unorganized militia" wasn't created by Congress, not in 1789 or 1791 or even when those words were put into law in 1903; it existed before the Constitution. As you said, this general militia / armed citizen _principle_ has been in existence going back to ancient times. It was the *organized* militia that needed to be created, to have a command structure fixed, to have a regimen of training written, to have a standard of arms established . . .
> 
> If your read *Federalist 29* it clearly speaks of '_the militia_' as something already in existence in the American Colony; it was simply _every able-bodied free White citizen capable of bearing arms_.
> 
> ...


I have read everything you have linked and little, if anything, has supported your claims and arguments in our discussion. Federalist 29 as quoted in your link is a personal opinion (editorial) posed by an individual opposed to a standing national army and favoring state militias to protect our forming Nation.. Interesting but totally irrelevant to our discussion. What is amazing is that you seem to think that it in some way supports your claim that Congress has the sole power to raise and govern militia. You continue to confuse "militia"(civilian) with "trained military". 

*When Federalist 29 was published in 1788 (as a rebuttal to argument opposing cl's 15 & 16), everyone -- especially those arguing against granting the power outlined in cl's 15 & 16 -- understood that Congress alone would possess the power to organize (or "form") the militia, that the states were surrendering that power.*

What  "everyone understood" is your opinion and matters not at all compared to what powers the Constitution (as ratified and amended) actually grants. If it grants Congress sole power to raise train deploy and govern militia it is there in black and white, in English, and available to quote. If the grant is not there it does not exist. So quote the Constitution and stop with all the deflection and BS. 

*The "unorganized militia" wasn't created by Congress, not in 1789 or 1791 or even when those words were put into law in 1903; it existed before the Constitution. As you said, this general militia / armed citizen principle has been in existence going back to ancient times. It was the organized militia that needed to be created, to have a command structure fixed, to have a regimen of training written, to have a standard of arms established . . .*

What you describe as "organized militia" is in fact regular military raised, trained, paid and governed by government and as apposed to militia which is civilian and not necessarily raised trained governed or employed by any particular entity ie unorganized militia. This is how the term "militia" is used historically.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 9, 2021)

The experts have been arguing about the definition of "militia" as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for more than half a century and the issue has been settled by scores of decisions by federal courts and the S.C. The people have the right etc. The 2nd Amendment, however, did not provide for the creation of a militia.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 9, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Militias are simply a group of armed civilians.


Who are subject to all state and Federal firearm regulations.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 9, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment bans federal (at least) authority over the right of the people.


Wrong.

Second Amendment case law applies to both the Federal government and state and local governments (see _McDonald v. Chicago_ (2010)).

The Federal government and state and local governments have the authority to regulate firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law neither violate nor infringe upon the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, such as UBCs, licensing and permit requirements, and firearm purchase waiting periods.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 9, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> 2nd Amendment  provides the creation of the state militia to defend the rights of the people of the state. What is the mechanism for creating such a militia, is it stipulated somewhere? Could it be a spontaneous militia, should its creation first be discussed at the level of the State Council, or should there be a plebescite. Is this mechanism regulated by the law? What are the rules for the legal formation of a militia?



What on Earth? No it doesn't.

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution says:

"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;"

So, even this doesn't create the militia. It merely  assumes the militia would already exist. Because states would literally need a militia. 

The states are allowed to have a militia, they're allowed to have officers, and the feds can call this militia up if they want to. 

Nothing more.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 9, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Militia simply means armed civilians who band together for a common goal. No rules of formation.



Not true at all. The National Guard is a militia. 

There is the "unorganized militia" whose sole purpose is to stop eejits from being able to demand a place in the National Guard.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 9, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Neither the courts nor any other part of the government can legally change Constitutional law except through the Amendment process. The Constitution does not reserve the right to form a militia to the federal or State. If it intended to do so it would have stated so plainly. It does not. Nor would the practice have continued unchallenged to the current day.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Constitution either gives powers, or takes them away from people.

The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this and said that individuals cannot get together and parade around with their guns like a militia.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 10, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Not true at all. The National Guard is a militia.
> 
> There is the "unorganized militia" whose sole purpose is to stop eejits from being able to demand a place in the National Guard.


Wrong. The National Guard is part-time regular Army Trained and employed by the Federal government; they are not civilians.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 10, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> The Constitution either gives powers, or takes them away from people.
> 
> The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this and said that individuals cannot get together and parade around with their guns like a militia.


I believe you are wrong. Please quote the case and the decision.


----------



## Batcat (Dec 10, 2021)

Correll said:


> You don't get it. The Militia is the whole of the People.
> 
> 
> The rest is you looking for excuses to undermine the Freedom and Power of the People.
> ...


Democrats think they are smarter than the average person and they hope for a government led by the smartest of the smart democrats rather than the ignorant people. A government that is in control of everybody's life from cradle to grave. A true socialist workers’ paradaise.

They hope to establish a Marist socialist government and insist this time they will make the concept work.

Reality is a bitch. For example these wise democrats have managed today to elect as President an aging, corrupt politician with dementia and as Vice President a giggling, incompetent woman with little if any skill or charisma. That was the best they could come up with from their ranks of well educated, liberal intelligentsia. 









						Mark Levin's 'American Marxism' Sounds Alarm Bell
					

Mark Levin's "American Marxism" (2021, Threshold Books, New York) is an eye opener that sounds an alarm bell.




					www.newsmax.com


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 10, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Wrong. The National Guard is part-time regular Army Trained and employed by the Federal government; they are not civilians.



The reality is if you look at the Dick Act you'll see I'm not wrong. 









						Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. The 1903 act repealed the Militia Acts of 1795 and designated the militia (per Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311) as two classes: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, comprising state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 10, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> I believe you are wrong. Please quote the case and the decision.



_*Presser v. Illinois*_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 10, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> The Constitution either gives powers, or takes them away from people.
> 
> The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this and said that individuals cannot get together and parade around with their guns like a militia.


Correct.

Private individuals are not at liberty to unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ and by doing so make the claim that they are not subject to Federal and state firearm regulatory measures.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 10, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> Private individuals are not at liberty to unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ and by doing so make the claim that they are not subject to Federal and state firearm regulatory measures.



They are not at liberty to do so, and they're also not able to do so Constitutionally. 

They could call themselves a militia, they could have guns, they can do all of that. But they're not a "militia" as defined by the US Constitution and they have no protections whatsoever.

They could also call themselves rabbits and dress up in a rabbit suit, if they so choose.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 10, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Neither the courts nor any other part of the government can legally change Constitutional law except through the Amendment process.


No one is claiming otherwise.

The courts do have the authority to determine what the Constitution means, however, and invalidate laws, policies, and measures repugnant to the Constitution – and that’s clearly stated in the Founding Document.

And the courts have consistently held that there is no ‘right’ recognized by the Second Amendment authorizing private citizens to form a ‘militia’ absent government authorization.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 10, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this  . . .



What SCOTUS cases held "the power to have a militia lies solely with the states"?

None of the Court's "militia" cases that I know of . . .

_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),
_Perpich v. Department of Defense_, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).

. . . held "the power to have a militia lies solely with the states".  Do you have another list of cases I should be reading, or can you quote me in _those_ cases where "the power to have a militia lies solely with the states" is the holding?

I always believed the federal preemption question was settled in 1820 in _Houston v Moore_. 

Congressional power over the militia is *unlimited* except for two particulars that remained the power of the states, to name the officers and to train the members in accordance to the regimen written by Congress.  

As clause 16 says, Congress (alone) possesses the power to organize, arm and discipline the militia -- "_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 Dick Act in 1903 solidified that power, to the point Congress had to invent "State Defensive Forces" allowing the states to have a semi-autonomous force for its own security and public safety.  They were essentially lovely parting gifts given to the states to make up for Congress extinguishing all state militia powers.

Of course all _that_ post 1903-16 gingerbread is written under clause 12 of the Constitution, not cl's 15 & 16, the militia clauses.


----------



## rupol2000 (Dec 10, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> What on Earth? No it doesn't.
> 
> Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution says:
> 
> ...



The militia can be used against the feds as well, this is clear from the context.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 10, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> The reality is if you look at the Dick Act you'll see I'm not wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link. Good addition to the discussion.
However I contend that the Dick Act with it's amendments effectively changed the *State* Militia  into the *National *Guard which no longer fits the definition of "militia" hence the name change. Current National Guard units are formed and trained to federal standards are employed by the Federal government and members are required to obey orders of the Federal government and regular Army and are subject to discipline under the UCMJ." Militias" are comprised of civilians. National Guardsmen are no longer civilians.


_*Presser v. Illinois*_,_ 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

*"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.* But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state._

Most of the area of the United States is NOT in and cities towns therefore this opinion does not apply to most of America.
Also this opinion does NOT establish law but merely states the "sections under consideration" do not forbid such laws.
No opinion is rendered considering any particular law so no laws have been approved or disapproved by the Supreme Court.
It has already been determined that individuals make up the unorganized militia.


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one is claiming otherwise.
> 
> The courts do have the authority to determine what the Constitution means, however, and invalidate laws, policies, and measures repugnant to the Constitution – and that’s clearly stated in the Founding Document.
> 
> And the courts have consistently held that there is no ‘right’ recognized by the Second Amendment authorizing private citizens to form a ‘militia’ absent government authorization.



Some folks are contending this opinion means much more than it actually does and need to read more closely.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 10, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Most of the area of the United States is NOT in and cities towns therefore this opinion does not apply to most of America.



Hahahahahahahahaha . . .



9thIDdoc said:


> Also this opinion does NOT establish law but merely states the "sections under consideration" do not forbid such laws.



Hahahahahahahahaha . . .



9thIDdoc said:


> No opinion is rendered considering any particular law so no laws have been approved or disapproved by the Supreme Court.



Hahahahahahahahaha . . .



9thIDdoc said:


> Some folks are contending this opinion means much more than it actually does and need to read more closely.



Hahahahahahahahaha . . .


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 10, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Hahahahahahahahaha . . .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Dec 10, 2021)

Justice Scalia said everyone is in the militia.

Heller vs DC


----------



## Abatis (Dec 10, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


>



Your goofy musings are but unicorn farts, enchanting and mystical but have no atachment to the authorities you quote and cite.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 10, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Your goofy musings are but unicorn farts, enchanting and mystical but have no atachment to the authorities you quote and cite.


Mostly the authorities I've cited and/or quoted were first cited/quoted by you.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 10, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Justice Scalia said everyone is in the militia.
> 
> Heller vs DC



Can you provide that quote?
Are you sure "IN" is the correct word?
"IN" doesn't sound like something Scalia would say in _Heller_ in that context.
And it's _DC v Heller_, the appellants (losers at the lower court) are named first.

While every able-bodied man capable of bearing arms certainly was considered to "be militia", that doesn't mean he (and "everyone" else) was "in the militia".  

Since you consider Scalia an authority, the point is explained by him in _Heller_:

"Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. . . .  To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them."​
A subset is not "everyone" . . .


----------



## Abatis (Dec 10, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Mostly the authorities I've cited and/or quoted were first cited/quoted by you.



I used them correctly though . . .

In my post directly above from _Heller_, what is "plenary power"?
​​​


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 10, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> The militia can be used against the feds as well, this is clear from the context.


Wrong.

As held in _Presser_, participation in a militia is lawful only when that militia is authorized by a state government or the Federal government.

Absent such authorization, a ‘militia’ that engages in lawless armed rebellion against the Federal government is nothing more than a criminal organization of traitors and terrorists.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 10, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Most of the area of the United States is NOT in and cities towns therefore this opinion does not apply to most of America.


Also wrong.

Presser was indicted for violating article 11 of the Military Code of the state of Illinois.

As state law, the Military Code applies not only to cities and towns but to the entire state, including its most rural and underpopulated jurisdictions.

The _Presser_ Court upheld as Constitutional article 11, applicable to all residents of the state.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 10, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Some folks are contending this opinion means much more than it actually does and need to read more closely.


The opinion is exceedingly clear: the states have the authority to authorize militia – absent such authorization, participation in a ‘militia’ is unlawful.

Residents of a state do not have the right to unilaterally organize a ‘militia,’ claim that their ‘militia’ is exempt from state and Federal firearm regulatory measures, and as a member of that ‘militia’ engage in lawless armed rebellion against the Federal government subjectively and incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 10, 2021)

Abatis said:


> What SCOTUS cases held "the power to have a militia lies solely with the states"?
> 
> None of the Court's "militia" cases that I know of . . .
> 
> ...



Firstly it depends on what you want to call a "militia", I guess. We could call the boy scouts a "militia" if we like. In which case there's nothing to stop people having a militia. 

If you think a militia is an armed group that is designed to protect the people from invaders and do other such things, then there is only one militia, and that's "the militia" as stated in the Constitution.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 10, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> The militia can be used against the feds as well, this is clear from the context.



The militia can't be used LEGALLY against the feds. However the militia was always intended to be the last resort if the government were to become bad government. But who gets to decide whether it's bad or not?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 10, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Thanks for the link. Good addition to the discussion.
> However I contend that the Dick Act with it's amendments effectively changed the *State* Militia  into the *National *Guard which no longer fits the definition of "militia" hence the name change. Current National Guard units are formed and trained to federal standards are employed by the Federal government and members are required to obey orders of the Federal government and regular Army and are subject to discipline under the UCMJ." Militias" are comprised of civilians. National Guardsmen are no longer civilians.
> 
> 
> ...



You could contend this, however it's still considered a PART of the militia. The organized militia and the unorganized militia. The organized militia militia was designed to do the things the militia couldn't do in the war with Mexico when the militia was considered a complete disaster. 

So, it's still a part of the militia. 

National Guardsmen are civilians until they're called up to federal duty. Same as any other militiaman. You'd be saying in 1792 that once called up into federal service you were no longer in the militia. I don't think it matters either way what you think their status is, really. 

The Dick Act made it clear the National Guard was the "organized militia". 

Not sure what your point is with Presser. No one has said that the militia is not made up of individuals or the 2A relates to non-individuals.


----------



## ESay (Dec 11, 2021)

surada said:


> Private armies are not American.


What can be defined as a private army? A private security firm having guards who can legally bear arms is a private army?


----------



## surada (Dec 11, 2021)

ESay said:


> What can be defined as a private army? A private security firm having guards who can legally bear arms is a private army?



I'm really not sure.. A security guard makes $20,000.. a PMC maakes 50,000 after taxes?


----------



## Abatis (Dec 11, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Firstly it depends on what you want to call a "militia", I guess.



Are you saying that a state or the Supreme Court is unsure or confused between constitutionally organized militia and the Boy Scouts?

The issue is what _you_ thought a militia was when you wrote, "The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this".  

That was the specific statement I quoted and I asked you about; my question's context was federal supremacy and preemption only (and exposing your appeal to authority is fallacious).  

I'm not interested in a Boy Scouts are militia red herring; I'm only interested in your defense of your statement that, "The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this".

So, let's try this again, what SCOTUS cases held "the power to have a militia lies solely with the states"?


----------



## Natural Citizen (Dec 11, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> As held in _Presser_, participation in a militia is lawful only when that militia is authorized by a state government or the Federal government.
> 
> Absent such authorization, a ‘militia’ that engages in lawless armed rebellion against the Federal government is nothing more than a criminal organization of traitors and terrorists.



You're correct in that the people of a State, _acting through their State government_, may, at last resort, organize a militia but this organization is meant to_ oppose _any force imposed by federal usurpers.

So where do you come up with authorization by the Federal government?

Article IV is as close as you can come to anything in relation to federal authority with regard to militias in that all Federal officials, both civil and military, take an oath to support the Constitution (only).

Which means all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority. While that main authority would be the President, the President's authority is only as good as any orders which are_ not _violative of the Constitution.

The military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers, automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start, but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law.

State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means. By force in last resort.

Now. Placing Article IV aside, the issue is also covered rather well in the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) which made this clear in these words: " _that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."_

And, of course, I'd referenced previously in the discussion the Federalist, numbers 28 and 46, by Hamilton and Madison, as they had explained in great detail opposition of Federal usurpers by militias acting through their State governments.


----------



## ESay (Dec 11, 2021)

surada said:


> I'm really not sure.. A security guard makes $20,000.. a PMC maakes 50,000 after taxes?


I don't know why that matters at all. The question is not in the salaries. The question is what can be deemed as a private army per se.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Dec 11, 2021)

Just out of curiosity, and the fact that I don't really feel like reading through the whole thread since I just happened to click on new posts and Jones' post interested me, has anyone mentioned the relevance of the second amendment to the use of force through militias of the States to oppose Federal usurpers?

Because the reality is that this is where the right to bear arms, constitutionally speaking, actually derives. I don't ever really bring it up. But it does. So that is to say that there isn't a natural right to a gun, per se. There is a natural right to property, however. And, of course, the threat from federal usurpers is eternal. So there's that. But there's still a but in there because if militias are products of States as last resort means of use of force against Federal usurpers, meaning ''well regulated"...ahem...then it gets a little tricky with plinkers.

Of course the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is very broad. So often it sounds like some cliche phrase. But technically speaking, the right to a pursuit of happiness means the whole of individual liberty. The whole of man's freedom. It would be an endless list. And that's a deep discussion. But the ninth amendment is rather clear in that regard in that _"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."_

And just to clarify, when I say the whole of man's freedom and the entirety of individual liberty, I'm not talking from the perspective of some empty dictionary.com definiton that a lot of the European politicos resort to to support talking points when they don't understand the fundamentals of Amewrican governance and man's relation to government.  I'm talking about these things from the perspective of the manner in which the Founders intended. Meaning the American electorate's freedom from government-over-man. And the American electorate's liberty against government-over-man.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 11, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Are you saying that a state or the Supreme Court is unsure or confused between constitutionally organized militia and the Boy Scouts?
> 
> The issue is what _you_ thought a militia was when you wrote, "The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this".
> 
> ...



No. 

I'm working on the line that "the militia" is a military unit which is able to act as such. 

Others might not be working on that view. So we need to clarify before going further. 

You're not interested in clarifying, your problem dude. We can end this conversation right now if you're not willing to do the basics.


----------



## surada (Dec 11, 2021)

ESay said:


> I don't know why that matters at all. The question is not in the salaries. The question is what can be deemed as a private army per se.



A Look At The Largest Private Armies In The World

Unity Resources Group is active in the Middle East, Africa, the Americas and Asia. ...
Erinys has guarded most of Iraq's vital oil assets. ...
Asia Security Group is a powerful Afghan force linked to president Karzai. ...
DynCorp has battled Colombian rebels and drug-runners in Peru. ...
Triple Canopy has won a security contract in Iraq worth up to $1.5 billion. ...
More items...









						A Look At The Largest Private Armies In The World
					






					www.businessinsider.com


----------



## Abatis (Dec 11, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> Just out of curiosity, and the fact that I don't really feel like reading through the whole thread since I just happened to click on new posts and Jones' post interested me, has anyone mentioned the relevance of the second amendment to the use of force through militias of the States to oppose Federal usurpers?
> 
> Because the reality is that this is where the right to bear arms, constitutionally speaking, actually derives. I don't ever really bring it up. But it does.



The discussion here has been more on the actual control of militia (assuming the Republic is functioning properly).  Of course what you say is true and in the more usual debate of individual vs collective right, Federalist 28 and especially 46 come to bear.

I enjoy talking about 28 (and 29) and of course 46 but in this thread, the posters that have been my "opponents" push opinions and positions that bringing in 28 and 46 would not be recognized for what they are.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Dec 11, 2021)

Abatis said:


> The discussion here has been more on the actual control of militia (assuming the Republic is functioning properly).  Of course what you say is true and in the more usual debate of individual vs collective right, Federalist 28 and especially 46 come to bear.
> 
> I enjoy talking about 28 (and 29) and of course 46 but in this thread, the posters that have been my "opponents" push opinions and positions that bringing in 28 and 46 would not be recognized for what they are.



Oh, I see. Thanks. I was just curious. It naturally comes into the discussion. It should anyway.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 11, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> No.
> 
> I'm working on the line that "the militia" is a military unit which is able to act as such.
> 
> ...



Dude, the question is and always has been focused on the organized militia and the unorganized militia and what the particular qualities are of those bodies -- as they relate to "militia" under the Constitution.

The unorganized militia are not militia in the legal sense of the Constitution. Private citizens, not in law obligated to serve and not "enrolled and notified" have no militia impressment, no militia regulations act upon them  -- *expressio unius est exclusio alterius*. 

Members of the _organized_ militia have no need for a "right to keep and bear arms"; everything they do, even the type of arm they are mandated to provide himself with, is a legal obligation with penalty for evasion.


----------



## ESay (Dec 11, 2021)

surada said:


> A Look At The Largest Private Armies In The World
> 
> Unity Resources Group is active in the Middle East, Africa, the Americas and Asia. ...
> Erinys has guarded most of Iraq's vital oil assets. ...
> ...


So, what makes these private armies an 'un-American' thing?


----------



## Natural Citizen (Dec 11, 2021)

One last thought on it before I hit the sheets for a while. Even though I shoulda hit em hours ago, but whatever. It's been one of those restless nights.

America is a ''compound Republic.'' Which means a federation of State Republics and a central Republic, with the greater quantity and variety of power being retained by the government of each State when the Constitution was framed and adopted.

See Federalist #51 by Madison.

Any other fly-by definition you see is wrong.  You see them all of the time in one form or another. A Representative Democracy, a Representative Republic, a Direct Democracy, a Constitutional Republic, the Our Democracy line, all of those terms are wrong. The term Constitutional Republic is especially humorous since you can't really be a true Republic without a written Constitution in the first place. It's a redundant term. Heck, I've even seen some Europeans try to pawn off Plato's Republic as a benchmark. And he didn't even talk anything governmental at all in that thing. Heh heh.

And that discussion may certainly be expanded upon as it's directly germane to the delegated, ''strictly limited'' power of the central Republic by the full-power State Republics and the State Republics' use of force against Federal usurpers functioning outside of their ''just power.''


----------



## surada (Dec 11, 2021)

ESay said:


> So, what makes these private armies an 'un-American' thing?



I think that private armies show up in countries with weak governments.. like bananna republics.

Note that Bannon is calling for shock troops to  control the next election results.


----------



## ESay (Dec 11, 2021)

surada said:


> I think that private armies show up in countries with weak governments.. like bananna republics.
> 
> Note that Bannon is calling for shock troops to  control the next election results.


So, the US uses such armies but somehow that is not an American thing.


----------



## surada (Dec 11, 2021)

ESay said:


> So, the US uses such armies but somehow that is not an American thing.



Do they use private armies in the US?


----------



## ESay (Dec 11, 2021)

surada said:


> Do they use private armies in the US?


And now we should define what is a private army. A private security firm which has guards who can legally bear the arms can be considered as a private army?


----------



## surada (Dec 11, 2021)

ESay said:


> And now we should define what is a private army. A private security firm which has guards who can legally bear the arms can be considered as a private army?



I have no idea. Although Desantis talks about a private army that reports to him and Bannon talks about shock troops.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 11, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> America is a ''compound Republic.'' Which means a federation of State Republics and a central Republic, with the greater quantity and variety of power being retained by the government of each State when the Constitution was framed and adopted.



And to that point _Presser_ is noteworthy.  The holding of _Presser_ is of course, the Illinois law barring citizens from assembling armed and marching and drilling as a militia, doesn't offend the 2nd Amendment.  IOW, there is no right for private citizens to form militia outside the structure set out in the Constitution and duly enacted federal and state law. 

That isn't the end of the larger issue for the Court because the reason why the 2nd Amendment wasn't violated was simply that the 2nd Amendment wasn't applicable to state law.   That didn't really solve the question before the Court of whether the Illinois law violated the citizen's _right to keep and bear arms_ because of two foundational, unalterable principles of the Constitution; two truths that could have implications on the holding. . . . 

The first principle is, because the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.

The second complicating principle is, those citizens who posses that RKBA and are NOT members of the state's organized militia, do have some degree of security status under the Constitution, the Court says:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."​
This explains a mingled dependence, in the reverse of what is called nowadays "states rights" it also dispenses with some issues of incorporation for the RKBA . . .  The states are flat-out barred from disarming the citizens because those armed citizens are the same resource the federal government depends upon for its security.

This is interesting also because it says that mandate against states disarming citizens exists without reference to the 2nd Amendment ("laying the constitutional provision in question out of view") and the federal protection of the citizen's RKBA against state action exists in two planes. It exists in the "general powers" and in the "prerogative of the general government." That word, prerogative, describes a underlying principle of our Constitutional Republic.

Because the Constitution promises to the states to forever provide a republican form of government, a power is thus granted by inference to keep that promise, to secure the continuance of our founding republican principles. The republican government that the founders embraced and established has as one of its most fundamental components, an armed citizenry ("it is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable . . ." as SCOTUS puts it).

The federal government then, in keeping that republican promise, can not allow any state to act in an 'un-republican' fashion, such as disarming the citizens. Understand also that the principle works both ways; the federal government can not act to disarm the citizens because the states rely on those same citizens *and their guns*, for _their_ security.

As an aside, _Presser_ makes it very clear that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment *does not* belong to the states to preserve any state militia power. If it did, the Court would have tested and applied the 2nd Amendment's scope and restriction on the federal "general powers" and the "prerogative of the general government" that works to bind the states, not tsting it against the state's claimed militia power to require a permit for an armed march by private citizens.

You are absolutely correct, most people today do not give the compound republic we have, the weight and respect it deserves.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 11, 2021)

Abatis said:


> And to that point _Presser_ is noteworthy.  The holding of _Presser_ is of course, the Illinois law barring citizens from assembling armed and marching and drilling as a militia, doesn't offend the 2nd Amendment.  IOW, there is no right for private citizens to form militia outside the structure set out in the Constitution and duly enacted federal and state law.
> 
> That isn't the end of the larger issue for the Court because the reason why the 2nd Amendment wasn't violated was simply that the 2nd Amendment wasn't applicable to state law.   That didn't really solve the question before the Court of whether the Illinois law violated the citizen's _right to keep and bear arms_ because of two foundational, unalterable principles of the Constitution; two truths that could have implications on the holding. . . .
> 
> ...


The fact that you continually ignore is that _Pressor _does no such thing. It is simply an opinion that cities and towns probably have the authority to make law governing parading in the streets of their towns. You simply jump to wild-eyed unwarranted unsupported conclusions in your efforts to make it something it is not. It makes no opinion about existing law, or the formation of militia, nor does it address the effect of the 2nd Amendment on State law. Massive spin on your part.  

*The first principle is, because the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.*

The Supreme Court has indeed ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right keep and bear arms and is a Right of the individual citizen. 
If the unorganized militia refers to pretty much all citizens then the Right to bear arms has great effect on raising militia because in most cases they were required bring their own arms. No arms=no militia.

*As an aside, Presser makes it very clear that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment does not belong to the states to preserve any state militia power.*

No spit? Obviously the Individual Right exists to preserve a potential militia that is formed of individual citizens.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 11, 2021)

surada said:


> Private armies are not American.


State militias are not private armies moron. And Militias are VERY American been with us since Colonial times.


----------



## surada (Dec 11, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> State militias are not private armies moron. And Militias are VERY American been with us since Colonial times.



They didn't have the Naational Guard in Colonial times.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 11, 2021)

surada said:


> They didn't have the Naational Guard in Colonial times.


States still have militias that are not National Guard, All the Guard is is the federalized section of the Militia.


----------



## surada (Dec 11, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> States still have militias that are not National Guard, All the Guard is is the federalized section of the Militia.



Which states?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 11, 2021)

__





						What states have a militia?
					

Currently, only Texas, Ohio, Alaska and New York have uniformed naval militias. Only Texas, California, Vermont, and Puerto Rico have an air wing, though Indiana formerly had an Air Guard Reserve.




					askinglot.com
				








__





						What states have a militia?
					

Currently, only Texas, Ohio, Alaska and New York have uniformed naval militias. Only Texas, California, Vermont, and Puerto Rico have an air wing, though Indiana formerly had an Air Guard Reserve.




					askinglot.com


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 11, 2021)

Read the link 23 states have militias called state defense forces.


----------



## surada (Dec 11, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who pays for their weapons, wages and training?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 11, 2021)

surada said:


> Who pays for their weapons, wages and training?


that would depend on state law.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 11, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Dude, the question is and always has been focused on the organized militia and the unorganized militia and what the particular qualities are of those bodies -- as they relate to "militia" under the Constitution.
> 
> The unorganized militia are not militia in the legal sense of the Constitution. Private citizens, not in law obligated to serve and not "enrolled and notified" have no militia impressment, no militia regulations act upon them  -- *expressio unius est exclusio alterius*.
> 
> Members of the _organized_ militia have no need for a "right to keep and bear arms"; everything they do, even the type of arm they are mandated to provide himself with, is a legal obligation with penalty for evasion.


Depends if you understand the Second Amendment or not.

There are two rights in the 2A. The right to keep arms, which is the right to own arms, and the right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia. 

We know the second is true. Just people with narratives try and hide this fact because it's inconvenient for their narrative. 



			Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
		


It's all right here.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

The clause they were talking about. 

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Clearly Mr Gerry saw "Bear arms" and "militia duty" as synonymous words.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

And Mr Jackson saw "bear arms" "militia duty" and "render military service" as synonymous.

In fact there's nothing about self defense, nothing about walking around with guns. 

Mr Gerry even said (after the first of my quotes): "Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

He's talking about the militia. He's talking about PROTECTING the militia. 

How do you protect the militia from the federal government which can call the militia up to federal service?

1) You make the weaponry civilian weaponry. The feds can't then call you up, take your gun, and sent you back again. Hence the right to keep arms for individuals to be able to own their own weapons. 

2) You make a right to be in the militia. If the feds can't stop you from being in the militia, they can't destroy the militia by removing all the people. As Mr Gerry put it: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Now, on to the Dick Act. 

The feds wanted a militia that would serve their purposes. The contemporary militia simply did not do that as shown in the Mexican Wars. So they made the National Guard to be that militia that could be more professional. But they had a problem. If they made only the National Guard, individuals would be able to demand their right to be in the militia, and therefore they'd be able to join the National Guard. So they made the "unorganized militia" to tell everyone "you're already in the militia, so you can't demand to be in the National Guard".

Article 1, Section 8 says "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia"

Putting the militia into the "Organized militia" and "unorganized militia" is "organizing the Militia", which the US federal government has the power to do. It arms that militia, it disciplines that militia too. It's all very constitutional. 

There doesn't need to be a militia act. The feds do not need to act on anything if they choose not to. They have powers. They don't need to use those powers if they choose not to.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 11, 2021)

surada said:


> They didn't have the Naational Guard in Colonial times.


The British were fought and defeated by local militia with some (mostly naval) from France.




__





						minutemen meaning - Google Search
					





					www.google.com
				




Battle of Kings Mountain​October 7, 1780


Description​The Battle of Kings Mountain was a military engagement between Patriot and Loyalist militias in South Carolina during the Southern Campaign of the American Revolutionary War, resulting in a decisive victory for the Patriots. Wikipedia


----------



## Abatis (Dec 12, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The fact that you continually ignore is that _Pressor _does no such thing. It is simply an opinion that cities and towns probably have the authority to make law governing parading in the streets of their towns.



Wrong . . . * not just "parading" and definitely not just "probably"* . . ._ 

Presser _unequivocally, absolutely holds that states are authorized under the US Constitution to prohibit, "any body of men whatever, other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this state, and the troops of the United States, to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, *or* to drill or parade with arms in any city or town of this state, without the license of the governor thereof, . . . "

Does that penetrate your thick skull?  For citizens to just associate together as a military company or organization, in private, anywhere in the state, even in the rural countryside or on top of a desolate mountaintop, is a violation of law.

Here's more _Presser_ on that point for you:

"It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit . . . 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."​



9thIDdoc said:


> It makes no opinion about existing law,



Yeah, it sure did, on multiple levels and multiple existing laws.

First, the Supreme Court followed its own "settled rule" that the specific laws the appellants were charged under ("sections 5 and 6 of article 11") were separable from the entire body of the Military Code of Illinois and their constitutionality could be examined separately.

Then SCOTUS in _Presser_ methodically rules that "sections 5 and 6 of article 11" of the Military Code of Illinois, which, again, "_prohibit any body of men, other than the organized militia of the state and the troops of the United States, from associating as a military company_", did not violate;

Art. I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 of the Constitution, OR
the Militia Act of 1792, OR
the Militia Act of 1795, OR
the 2nd Amendment, OR
the 14th Amendment.

Does that penetrate your thick skull?



9thIDdoc said:


> nor does it address the effect of the 2nd Amendment on State law.



See, now that stupid crap just makes me think you are just trolling. Just in case you are just that ignorant, that utterly uninformed and just so arrogantly obstinate, if there is one thing _Presser_ is known for it is citing _Cruikshank_ and quoting _Cruikshank,_ that the 2nd Amendment is not applicable to, or enforceable upon state law.

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, . . . do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. 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, . . . "​
How can you defend your stupid statement that, "nor does [_Presser_] address the effect of the 2nd Amendment on State law"?  Really, where the hell did that conclusion come from, it's obvious you *never* read the case.

Why do you feel the compulsion to say shit when you obviously have no idea, have no knowledge of the topic?  Or is it that you purposefully say shit that is wrong, because you get off seeing people answer your absurdities?

Whatever your affliction is, whether it is innocent ignorance or purposeful idiocy, I'm done with you.

I have given you nothing but absolutely correct on the law replies and given you every chance to at least try to fake trying to be competent.

Any reply to me will be responded to with a link to this post.



9thIDdoc said:


> Massive spin on your part.



Maybe you would be more in your element *HERE*, maybe find some nice carrot cake recipes


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 13, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> The militia can't be used LEGALLY against the feds. However the militia was always intended to be the last resort if the government were to become bad government. But who gets to decide whether it's bad or not?


The people decide through the democratic process.

Absent consensus of the majority of the people that government has become ‘bad’ or ‘tyrannical,’ any armed insurrection against the government would be lawless rebellion and treason.

That’s why the Framers never sanctioned insurrectionist dogma; the First Amendment, the rule of law, and our democratic institutions safeguard the people from tyranny, not the Second Amendment.

_“But what if the rule of law fails and government rejects the First Amendment and destroys our democratic institutions?” _

In that case the American Experiment has failed, the Republic is lost, the Constitution eliminated, and the question of the role of the ‘militia’ rendered moot, beyond reclamation by armed insurrection – the country subject to the capricious tyranny of lawless mob rule.

That’s why it’s vital to oppose efforts to undermine the political process and our democratic institutions – once gone, there’s no bringing them back through ‘force of arms.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 13, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> It is simply an opinion that cities and towns probably have the authority to make law governing parading in the streets of their towns.


No, _Presser_ is an opinion of the Supreme Court, making it the law of the land, that absent authorization by a state or the Federal government, a ‘militia’ is devoid of the authority to function in any military capacity, including engaging in lawless rebellion against the Federal government subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical,’ and if it seeks to do so, it is nothing more than a criminal organization whose members are in violation of the law.

That you don’t like or agree with the ruling doesn’t change that fact.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 13, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The people decide through the democratic process.
> 
> Absent consensus of the majority of the people that government has become ‘bad’ or ‘tyrannical,’ any armed insurrection against the government would be lawless rebellion and treason.
> 
> ...



Wait, the US has a "democratic process"? I think not. 

No way in hell a democratic process would end up with two parties getting 98% of the vote and all the positions of power, all the seats in Congress and the Senate. 

Also, when it comes to the militia being needed, whatever little democracy people might think exists now will be totally up schitt creak by then. 

The reality is, if you're taking down the government, you're breaking the rules. But the other side might have broken the rules too.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 13, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Wrong . . . * not just "parading" and definitely not just "probably"* . . ._
> 
> Presser _unequivocally, absolutely holds that states are authorized under the US Constitution to prohibit, "any body of men whatever, other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this state, and the troops of the United States, to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, *or* to drill or parade with arms in any city or town of this state, without the license of the governor thereof, . . . "
> 
> ...


You won't be missed. You have made it obvious that you believe reality is whatever you choose to say it is and your inability back up your idiotic judgements or answer questions has gotten really old.









						PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				



_*Presser* _*unequivocally, absolutely holds that states are authorized under the US Constitution to prohibit, "any body of men whatever, other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this state, and the troops of the United States, to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms in any city or town of this state, without the license of the governor thereof, . . . "*

_"...other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this state, and the troops of the United States,..."_

Unorganized militia can be "volunteer". Organized militia (by current definition) cannot. Units or individuals that have been "called up" "called into or pressed into service" "drafted" or "conscripted" can no longer be said to be "volunteer" because they can no longer legally decide to "unvolunteer" or change their mind about serving. I continue to submit that militia are civilian volunteers and that any troops that are required to serve are regular troops; not volunteers.  Don't believe you can have it both ways. Regular troops are governed by the UCMJ while civilians  (including militia) are not except under special circumstances.

You were unable to show how your theory of the law accounts for the fact that during that period and for a considerable time afterward most militia unites were NOT formed by State or Federal governments but were often "called into Federal service (aka federalized) later on.  

Nor establish or seek to establish any such law rule, statute or regulation .

*"It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit . . . 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."*​Note exceptions​​​​


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 13, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No, _Presser_ is an opinion of the Supreme Court, making it the law of the land, that absent authorization by a state or the Federal government, a ‘militia’ is devoid of the authority to function in any military capacity, including engaging in lawless rebellion against the Federal government subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical,’ and if it seeks to do so, it is nothing more than a criminal organization whose members are in violation of the law.
> 
> That you don’t like or agree with the ruling doesn’t change that fact.


The court system is not authorized to make law so the ruling is not "... the law of the land".

*"...that absent authorization by a state or the Federal government, a ‘militia’ is devoid of the authority to function in any military capacity",*
The Federal government recognizes the "unorganized militia" does it not?


----------



## Opie (Dec 13, 2021)

1srelluc said:


> The first rule of organizing a militia is not to mention organizing a militia on a public forum because the next thing you know you have the FBI and all other manner of .gov "fellow enthusiasts" wanting to join.


That’s what people misunderstand about Militias. They are law abiding ones and not. There are Patriotic Militias and Militias that want to burn city’s down. I am a 3%er and we encourage being public. We have a public Forum at threepercenters.org and Telegram T.Me/ThreePercenters. If you are apart of the conversation you are the 3%


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 13, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Also wrong.
> 
> Presser was indicted for violating article 11 of the Military Code of the state of Illinois.
> 
> ...


The ruling cited the code but did not address it except as it applies to cities and towns of that State. It also states that the court does not know of a reason why the State couldn't forbid such activity. But the opinion itself forbids nothing.


----------



## Abatis (Dec 13, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> *"It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit . . . 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."*​Note exceptions​​



Please do, precisely . . . 

You employ ridiculous definitions of words that have no association to their use in law, you have no clue how the law operates and you prove again and again, you just have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## 1srelluc (Dec 13, 2021)

Patriot43 said:


> That’s what people misunderstand about Militias. They are law abiding ones and not. There are Patriotic Militias and Militias that want to burn city’s down. I am a 3%er and we encourage being public. We have a public Forum at threepercenters.org and Telegram T.Me/ThreePercenters. If you are apart of the conversation you are the 3%


Hell, the feds are so retarded they likely consider the Knights of Columbus a right-wing extremist group.....You know, they have swords and all.  

Politics and the Moron Language | National Review


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Dec 13, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Please do, precisely . . .
> 
> You employ ridiculous definitions of words that have no association to their use in law, you have no clue how the law operates and you prove again and again, you just have no idea what you are talking about.


Exceptions noted:
*"...unless restrained by their own constitutions,..."
"..except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States.". *

Taken directly from Presser as quoted in my posted link. As is this:

*It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.*


----------



## Abatis (Dec 13, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Depends if you understand the Second Amendment or not.
> 
> There are two rights in the 2A. The right to keep arms, which is the right to own arms, and the right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia.



There is no "right" to be in, or join the militia.  Congress' criteria for enrollment was specific and anyone not meeting the criteria of a, "_free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years_" was excluded from enrollment.

The Abolitionist legislature in Massachusetts found that out, they wanted to raise the political situation of Blacks and include Blacks in their state militia rolls but the idea was rejected because of federal militia law.  Going the other way, slave sates conditioned their state's right to arms protection on militia enrollment eligibility so laws forbidding arms to Blacks could be sustained.



frigidweirdo said:


> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."



One of the reasons the clause was objected to was because the provision was, (as Gerry explained, which you didn't quote), "_to prevent the maladministration of government_".

The framers were always wary and suspect of any wording that would allow the government to misconstruct the intent to protect rights, into a mechanism to restrict rights.

It was feared that government could declare who are religiously scrupulous or declare all were religiously scrupulous and declare all unsuitable to exercise the right and diminish or hobble the militia.

 The proposed clause you are focused on initially passed the House but was stricken in the Senate.  The Senate debates were not recorded so we don't know the actual arguments that led to it being stricken before it was sent back to he House.

Consider though, the proposed amendment was not an appropriate vehicle for rules for militia, its only intent was to _restrain_ government power.

How to exercise the Section 8 militia powers to regulate under law the organized militia, was already under discussion and the Militia Act of 1792 as enacted, contains a long list of citizens who are excepted from militia duty.

Interestingly, a word search in the *Congressional Documents and Debates* turns up no results for "religiously scrupulous" in the Second Congress, so whatever the perceived need for that exclusion in the debates of the proposed bill of rights in the summer of 1789, did not arise in the debates over the proposed Militia Act begun in the Fall of 1791.

A recognition of the exceptions that are codified in state laws exists in the final Militia Act, with no mention of the specifics of those exceptions or mention of any standing or future federal criteria to allow or disallow those state exceptions:

"*II. And be it further enacted*, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; *and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states*, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."​
Your example of a rejected proposal, is much ado about nothing and any inference you build on the proposed exception is an over-reading and precisely the kind of misconstruction the Federalists warned us about.




frigidweirdo said:


> Clearly Mr Gerry saw "Bear arms" and "militia duty" as synonymous words.



Whatever* you *feel *he *thought the words of the 2nd recognize, the right to keep and bear arms is a _right of the people_, not assigned to, belonging to, or confined to the militia.

Members of the militia, in the performance of their service have no need of a "right to keep and bear arms".  Everything a citizen does as an enrolled militia member, from how they acquire a gun and what type it is to when and how to carry it, was directed by *law*.

And are you really arguing Gerry's or Jackson's statements (or any Rep's you chop quote) were the sentiments of the whole House at the time?  Should either AOC's or MTG's 2020 statements be represented as the opinion of the whole House in 2220?



frigidweirdo said:


> And Mr Jackson saw "bear arms" "militia duty" and "render military service" as synonymous.



Jackson's objection was that those claiming the exemption could evade service, whether or not they were actually Quakers and people who *did* serve would need to defend them . . .   So either by decree or personal choice, those citizens who were considered "religiously scrupulous" could be eliminated from the citizens recognized as possessing the right to bear arms, thus evade liability / obligation to serve in the militia if it was called-up and the overall effectiveness of the militia would be diminished.   It was not uncommon in the laws of states that *those claiming an exception from duty, paid someone to serve in their stead*; that's all Jackson was proposing.

In the final account, the exercise of the right to arms is subject only to the individual's free will.  One can neither be compelled to exercise the right or be required to justify their need to exercise a right.  The entire premise of the "religiously scrupulous" exemption runs counter to the concept of a right which is why it was rejected.  The entire idea is absurd and your machinations and inventions against the RKBA from the "religiously scrupulous" exemption shows the wisdom of the framers in rejecting it.




frigidweirdo said:


> In fact there's nothing about self defense, nothing about walking around with guns.



Why would there be?

Because the powers of government were expressly stated in the body of the Constitution and "in fact there's nothing about self defense, nothing about walking around with guns" being restrained in the powers granted, no power exists for the federal government to even compose a thought on those actions.

The 2ndA isn't a permission slip for the citizen, a list the citizen refers to to find out what he's allowed to do . . .

"*In fact*" the 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything; it's merely a redundant declaration that the government is forbidden to exercise powers it was never granted.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 13, 2021)

Abatis said:


> There is no "right" to be in, or join the militia.  Congress' criteria for enrollment was specific and anyone not meeting the criteria of a, "_free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years_" was excluded from enrollment.
> 
> The Abolitionist legislature in Massachusetts found that out, they wanted to raise the political situation of Blacks and include Blacks in their state militia rolls but the idea was rejected because of federal militia law.  Going the other way, slave sates conditioned their state's right to arms protection on militia enrollment eligibility so laws forbidding arms to Blacks could be sustained.
> 
> ...



There totally is a right to be in the militia. 

I've explained it. You want to ignore the Founding Fathers....

The problem what you're looking at is the militia acts.

Militia acts were laws created by Congress. The right to be in the militia is from the Bill of Rights, which is Constitutional law, rather than congressional law.

Congress could say who is in the militia automatically. They put all males (more or less) from 18-45 automatically in the militia. They didn't need to do this, but they did it anyway.

The Dick Act put all males 17-45 automatically in the militia.

This doesn't mean Congress couldn't make a law that says no one can be in the militia. 

This is where the Second Amendment comes in. 

"Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. "

Exactly what Mr Gerry said. They were worried the feds could destroy the militia.

So, how do you protect the militia? 

Yes, the clause was not included because they felt that the government could declare someone religiously scrupulous and prevent them from being in the militia. 

So your argument is that there's no right to be in the militia, simply that Congress can make a law defining who is, and who isn't, in the militia. And that this would protect the people from bad government.

My argument is that there is a right to be in the militia. That Congress can temporarily make laws defining who is and who isn't in the militia AUTOMATICALLY, but that individuals can be in the militia if they so choose even if they're not included.

This was to stop the government declaring people unable to be in the militia and thereby destroying the militia. As Mr Gerry said. 

"Whatever* you *feel *he *thought the words of the 2nd recognize, the right to keep and bear arms is a _right of the people_, not assigned to, belonging to, or confined to the militia."

Huh? I didn't say the right was "confined to the militia".

A person doesn't need to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia. That makes no sense in the first place. Imagine you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in it. Then they just stop you being in the militia and therefore you have no right, and then the militia is dead. 

You're having an argument with what you think I ought to be saying, not with what I am saying.

Jackson was NOT talking about people evading service. They were talking about people who were religiously scrupulous of using arms. He wanted people to pay an equivalent if they didn't partake in militia duty because those who did do militia duty were putting something into their community, however he called this "render military service".

Now, in the different versions of the Second Amendment as they passed through Congress show that "render military service" and "bear arms" are synonymous:

"_June 8th 1789
but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 17th 1789
but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

August 24th 1789
but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 25th 1789
but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person._"

September 4th 1789 it was gone.

Why change "render military service" to  "bear arms" and back again? Why talk using these two terms interchangeably in Congress? 

Yeah, why would there be anything about self defense and lots about protecting the militia when it was all about protecting the militia?


----------



## Dayton3 (Dec 13, 2021)

JGalt said:


> Most states already have unorganized militias. Why shouldn't the states just legitimize them, pay for their ammunition, and pay for their booze?



What makes you think most militia members drink?


----------



## JGalt (Dec 13, 2021)

Dayton3 said:


> What makes you think most militia members drink?



Drink....or whatever.


----------



## Dayton3 (Dec 13, 2021)

JGalt said:


> Drink....or whatever.



What makes you the that most militia members "drink or whatever"?


----------



## JGalt (Dec 13, 2021)

Dayton3 said:


> What makes you the that most militia members "drink or whatever"?


No problem. That's more for me.


----------



## BackAgain (Dec 13, 2021)

There is a fascinating Master’s degree dissertation I came upon recently discussing the 2d Amendment. It seems to argue that the  2d Amendmemt was not about an individual’s right to have arms. Instead it contends that the Amendment was concerned more with protecting the right of the People and the states to have their own militia. And militias were presumed to be all eligible citizens of a state (which in that day and age wasn’t as broad as it might be today). It was designed to prevent the concentration of central (national) government power.

It had in mind the then very much inter-related notions of disallowing the quartering of troops in civilian homes and the general opposition to standing armies.

I’m not doing it justice, here. It’s long. It’s scholarly. I don’t agree with all of it. But then, that’s not crucial. It is more than many of our leftist pals offer in support of their positions.

The dissertation is called “THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: WHAT THE DEBATES AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND THE FIRST CONGRESS SAY ABOUT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
By
JEFFREY P. CAMPBELL Bachelor of Arts in History Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 2009”

 Here is the link:



			https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf


----------

