Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

[Rigby5]

No, it isn't. It is about the security of our free States. It says so in the first clause.

The security of our free States demands in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State--that is what is demanded by a State.

How can you have a free state or any free states if there federal gun control over them?
The 9th and 10th amendments are clear, there can be no federal gun control because no article in the constitution authorizes that.

Because it is clearly outlined in our federal Constitution.

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;

That is about being able to draft an army in emergencies.
There is nothing in there suggesting federal jurisdiction over firearms for civilians, in any way.
In fact, there is no point to being able to organize, arm, or discipline an Organized Militia if they are not already used to arms from their civilians firearm ownership.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't. It is about the security of our free States. It says so in the first clause.

The security of our free States demands in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State--that is what is demanded by a State.

How can you have a free state or any free states if there federal gun control over them?
The 9th and 10th amendments are clear, there can be no federal gun control because no article in the constitution authorizes that.

but isn't the second amendment delegated to the United States by the Constitution?

It is about the security of our free States not individual liberty. It says so in the first clause.

it's an individual protected right

The second clause states the directive
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

That can't be true; otherwise, even criminals of the People could rob banks and the police would not be able to arrest them.

the right of (even) the (criminals of the) people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

that's what it says
OH that's right showing how illiterate you truly are
Robbing a bank is a crime, theft is a crime you antirights fascist

lol. In other words, no right to keep and bear Arms for the Unorganized militia.

the people are the unorganized militia

So are the criminals of the People.

 

[danielpalos]

That is about being able to draft an army in emergencies.
There is nothing in there suggesting federal jurisdiction over firearms for civilians, in any way.
In fact, there is no point to being able to organize, arm, or discipline an Organized Militia if they are not already used to arms from their civilians firearm ownership.

How did you arrive at your conclusion from this:

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;

 

[Leo123]

Criminals of the People get Infringed all the time.

OK but, law abiding citizens should not be 'infringed all the time.,,,or EVER' And there's the 'rub' with the Marxist gun grabbers, they'd rather trust government (collective) control than individual, free, American citizen patriots. In fact those folks scare the Hell out of the Marxists who have infiltrated our government and, to take it a step further, patriotic American law abiding gun owners are being portrayed as the 'bad guys" instead of the true inner-city perps that use illegal guns to kill indiscriminately.

 

[justinacolmena]

lol. In other words, no right to keep and bear Arms for the Unorganized militia.

The right of the people. El derecho del pueblo. No, they are not dressed in their Sunday finest.

the people are the unorganized militia

Definitely unorganized. This is "the people" we are talking about. Whose right is not to be infringed.

 

[justinacolmena]

I'm getting a lot of misspellings and unauthorized edits on this forum. Stupidware.

 

[Rigby5]

That is about being able to draft an army in emergencies.
There is nothing in there suggesting federal jurisdiction over firearms for civilians, in any way.
In fact, there is no point to being able to organize, arm, or discipline an Organized Militia if they are not already used to arms from their civilians firearm ownership.

How did you arrive at your conclusion from this:

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 article you quoted only talks about the authority granted to the federal government to be able to use tax money to arm the Organized Militia. Clearly no one would ever suggest that meant it was allocating any federal jurisdiction over private arms? Are you suggesting that is what you think? Because it if is, then you are absurdly wrong because the civilian population has always been armed and even the majority of the arms used in the Civil War were provided by the states, not the federal government. In fact, there was not a single federal firearm law until 1934.

{...

• The first piece of national gun control legislation was passed on June 26, 1934. The National Firearms Act (NFA) — part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal for Crime“— was meant to curtail “gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.” The NFA imposed a tax on the manufacturing, selling, and transporting of firearms listed in the law, among them short-barrel shotguns and rifles, machine guns, firearm mufflers and silencers. Due to constitutional flaws, the NFA was modif…

...}

Here’s a Timeline of the Major Gun Control Laws in America

A rundown of the most important events influencing Federal gun policy

time.com

The 9th and 10th Amendments say that the federal government has no jurisdiction over anything not specifically given over to federal jurisdiction in the constitution, and clearly the federal government is given no jurisdiction over civilian firearms in any way. So if you don't want civilians to have machine guns, you have better pass 50 state laws and not a federal law.

 

[BlindBoo]

No, it isn't. It is about the security of our free States. It says so in the first clause.

The security of our free States demands in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State--that is what is demanded by a State.

How can you have a free state or any free states if there federal gun control over them?
The 9th and 10th amendments are clear, there can be no federal gun control because no article in the constitution authorizes that.

Because it is clearly outlined in our federal Constitution.

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 congress needs to start handing out automatic weapons, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Insist on getting organized.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

To the militia mobile!

we are organized under the unorganized militia
WE ARE COMING FOR YOU ANTIRIGHTS FASCIST

Only if you're between 17 and 45 and eligible for the draft.

 

[Rigby5]

And that is as wrong as anyone can get.
I tell you what you do go to someone who is using their second amendment right and you armed with only your first amendment right and see who comes out on top?

Criminals of the People get Infringed all the time.

Not at all true.
When a person is convicted and imprisoned, he still has rights and they can not be infringed.
When a person is incarcerated, they have a right to trial first, where it is ruled they are infringing on the rights of others, so their actions can be curtained. That is not an infringement of rights. They are allowed safety, food, religion, comfort, etc.
Criminals are not allowed weapons in jail, but they don't need them because they are protected by the guards.
A compromise between rights is not an infringement.
And infringement is an arbitrary restriction that does not necessary in order to defend the rights of others.

 

[Rigby5]

No, it isn't. It is about the security of our free States. It says so in the first clause.

The security of our free States demands in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State--that is what is demanded by a State.

How can you have a free state or any free states if there federal gun control over them?
The 9th and 10th amendments are clear, there can be no federal gun control because no article in the constitution authorizes that.

Because it is clearly outlined in our federal Constitution.

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 congress needs to start handing out automatic weapons, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Insist on getting organized.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

To the militia mobile!

we are organized under the unorganized militia
WE ARE COMING FOR YOU ANTIRIGHTS FASCIST

Only if you're between 17 and 45 and eligible for the draft.

The whole point of the unorganized militia is that it is defined on a state by state basis, and can include everybody.
What you listed, "between 17 and 45 and eligible for the draft" are the restrictions on who can be drafted into the Organized Militia. The unorganized militia is everyone, the whole People, in most cases.
Which is proven by the fact women did take part in hostilities.
Women were not eligible for the draft, but did fight in the revolution.
And they were not executed as illegal combatants.

{... Sometimes they were flung into the vortex of battle. Such was the case of Mary Ludwig Hays, better known as Molly Pitcher, who earned fame at the Battle of Monmouth in 1778. Hays first brought soldiers water from a local well to quench their thirst on an extremely hot and humid day and then replaced her wounded husband at his artillery piece, firing at the oncoming British. In a similar vein, Margaret Corbin was severely wounded during the British assault on Fort Washington in November 1776 and left for dead alongside her husband, also an artilleryman, until she was attended by a physician. She lived, though her wounds left her permanently disabled. History recalls her as the first American female to receive a soldier’s lifetime pension after the war. ...}

 

[Rigby5]

No, it isn't. It is about the security of our free States. It says so in the first clause.

The security of our free States demands in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State--that is what is demanded by a State.

How can you have a free state or any free states if there federal gun control over them?
The 9th and 10th amendments are clear, there can be no federal gun control because no article in the constitution authorizes that.

but isn't the second amendment delegated to the United States by the Constitution?

It is about the security of our free States not individual liberty. It says so in the first clause.

But like all amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd amendment is a restriction on federal jurisdiction.
Does not matter that it is for the security of our free states.
It certainly does not authorized any federal weapons legislation.

 

[Rigby5]

No, it isn't. It is about the security of our free States. It says so in the first clause.

The security of our free States demands in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State--that is what is demanded by a State.

How can you have a free state or any free states if there federal gun control over them?
The 9th and 10th amendments are clear, there can be no federal gun control because no article in the constitution authorizes that.

but isn't the second amendment delegated to the United States by the Constitution?

It is about the security of our free States not individual liberty. It says so in the first clause.

it's an individual protected right

The second clause states the directive
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

That can't be true; otherwise, even criminals of the People could rob banks and the police would not be able to arrest them.

the right of (even) the (criminals of the) people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

that's what it says
OH that's right showing how illiterate you truly are
Robbing a bank is a crime, theft is a crime you antirights fascist

lol. In other words, no right to keep and bear Arms for the Unorganized militia.

the people are the unorganized militia

So are the criminals of the People.

Definitely.
And often criminals were given pardons if they fought in war.

 

[justinacolmena]

Definitely.
And often criminals were given pardons if they fought in war.

And they revoke gun rights in the U.S. for a "dishonorable discharge" from the military. I'm sorry, if they really committed treason, then it was a further act of treason to let them return alive to live amongst us, gun rights or no.

Otherwise, those who have been discharged on a "dishonorable" basis need to be accorded the full honors of everyone who took part in the combat or did their time in service as the case may be.

That is a classification of military discharge that is completely unacceptable under the U.S. Constitution, which the Masonic medals, decorations, and obscure classifications of rank of commissioned and non-commissioned officers granted by the U.S. military only makes worse.

 

[Rigby5]

Definitely.
And often criminals were given pardons if they fought in war.

And they revoke gun rights in the U.S. for a "dishonorable discharge" from the military. I'm sorry, if they really committed treason, then it was a further act of treason to let them return alive to live amongst us, gun rights or no.

Otherwise, those who have been discharged on a "dishonorable" basis need to be accorded the full honors of everyone who took part in the combat or did their time in service as the case may be.

That is a classification of military discharge that is completely unacceptable under the U.S. Constitution, which the Masonic medals, decorations, and obscure classifications of rank of commissioned and non-commissioned officers granted by the U.S. military only makes worse.

Revoking gun rights is not really legal.
Rights can not be revoked, as they are inherent and not granted by government.

But Jean Lafitte was a convicted felon pardoned in order to help protect New Orleans in 1812,

{... Despite Lafitte warning the other Baratarians of a possible military attack on their base of operations, a United States naval force successfully invaded in September 1814 and captured most of his fleet. Later, in return for a legal pardon, Lafitte and his fleet helped General Andrew Jackson defend New Orleans during the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812, as British forces sought access to the Mississippi River. After securing victory, Jackson paid tribute to the Lafitte brothers' efforts, as well as those of their fellow privateers, in despatches. ...}

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, it isn't. It is about the security of our free States. It says so in the first clause.

The security of our free States demands in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State--that is what is demanded by a State.

How can you have a free state or any free states if there federal gun control over them?
The 9th and 10th amendments are clear, there can be no federal gun control because no article in the constitution authorizes that.

but isn't the second amendment delegated to the United States by the Constitution?

It is about the security of our free States not individual liberty. It says so in the first clause.

it's an individual protected right

The second clause states the directive
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

That can't be true; otherwise, even criminals of the People could rob banks and the police would not be able to arrest them.

the right of (even) the (criminals of the) people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

that's what it says
OH that's right showing how illiterate you truly are
Robbing a bank is a crime, theft is a crime you antirights fascist

lol. In other words, no right to keep and bear Arms for the Unorganized militia.

the people are the unorganized militia

So are the criminals of the People.

fucking idiot

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, it isn't. It is about the security of our free States. It says so in the first clause.

The security of our free States demands in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State--that is what is demanded by a State.

How can you have a free state or any free states if there federal gun control over them?
The 9th and 10th amendments are clear, there can be no federal gun control because no article in the constitution authorizes that.

Because it is clearly outlined in our federal Constitution.

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 congress needs to start handing out automatic weapons, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Insist on getting organized.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

To the militia mobile!

we are organized under the unorganized militia
WE ARE COMING FOR YOU ANTIRIGHTS FASCIST

Only if you're between 17 and 45 and eligible for the draft.

your moniker fits you blind
There is no age limit max. in the unorganized militia
G.S. 127A-7
The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able-bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions.

 

[Lesh]

What you listed, "between 17 and 45 and eligible for the draft" are the restrictions on who can be drafted into the Organized Militia. The unorganized militia is everyone,

Bullshit.

Fact Check-The Militia Act of 1903 does not forbid legislation limiting the sale or possession of firearms

Posts on social media claim that the “Dick Act of 1902 … invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.” This claim is false. Also known as the Dick Act, the Militia Act in question, passed in 1903 not 1902, created two classes of militia within the United States: the organized...

www.reuters.com

MEN---18-45 and not Federal employees. That's the UNorganized militia

Scalia realized how limiting this was so he just ignored the entire militia clause...but it's there

 

[danielpalos]

Criminals of the People get Infringed all the time.

OK but, law abiding citizens should not be 'infringed all the time.,,,or EVER' And there's the 'rub' with the Marxist gun grabbers, they'd rather trust government (collective) control than individual, free, American citizen patriots. In fact those folks scare the Hell out of the Marxists who have infiltrated our government and, to take it a step further, patriotic American law abiding gun owners are being portrayed as the 'bad guys" instead of the true inner-city perps that use illegal guns to kill indiscriminately.

Weapons qualification is not Infringement.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. In other words, no right to keep and bear Arms for the Unorganized militia.

The right of the people. El derecho del pueblo. No, they are not dressed in their Sunday finest.

the people are the unorganized militia

Definitely unorganized. This is "the people" we are talking about. Whose right is not to be infringed.

The people who are the well regulated militia may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of all of the other ones in the unorganized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

That is about being able to draft an army in emergencies.
There is nothing in there suggesting federal jurisdiction over firearms for civilians, in any way.
In fact, there is no point to being able to organize, arm, or discipline an Organized Militia if they are not already used to arms from their civilians firearm ownership.

How did you arrive at your conclusion from this:

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 article you quoted only talks about the authority granted to the federal government to be able to use tax money to arm the Organized Militia. Clearly no one would ever suggest that meant it was allocating any federal jurisdiction over private arms? Are you suggesting that is what you think? Because it if is, then you are absurdly wrong because the civilian population has always been armed and even the majority of the arms used in the Civil War were provided by the states, not the federal government. In fact, there was not a single federal firearm law until 1934.

{...

• The first piece of national gun control legislation was passed on June 26, 1934. The National Firearms Act (NFA) — part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal for Crime“— was meant to curtail “gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.” The NFA imposed a tax on the manufacturing, selling, and transporting of firearms listed in the law, among them short-barrel shotguns and rifles, machine guns, firearm mufflers and silencers. Due to constitutional flaws, the NFA was modif…

...}

Here’s a Timeline of the Major Gun Control Laws in America

A rundown of the most important events influencing Federal gun policy

time.com

The 9th and 10th Amendments say that the federal government has no jurisdiction over anything not specifically given over to federal jurisdiction in the constitution, and clearly the federal government is given no jurisdiction over civilian firearms in any way. So if you don't want civilians to have machine guns, you have better pass 50 state laws and not a federal law.

This is a State's sovereign right:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. (The Federalist Number Forty-Five)