Guns are having a VERY bad day at SCOTUS

[danielpalos]

there is no point arguing with him he is brain dead.

The First Sergeant told me not to pay attention to you.

 

[Abatis]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

What need does a militia member have, for a, "right to keep and bear arms"?

Citing clause 16 powers, which were exercised in the various Militia Acts to organize, arm, and discipline the organized militia, shows that everything an enrolled militia member does is under obligation of law -- NOT ANY RIGHT -- with legal penalties for refusing to muster when called or otherwise not complying.

No aspect of militia service is ever associated with any "right"; there was/is no free will or discretionary aspect afforded to the citizen when enrolled in militia service.

 

[danielpalos]

What need does a militia member have, for a, "right to keep and bear arms"?

Citing clause 16 powers, which were exercised in the various Militia Acts to organize, arm, and discipline the organized militia, shows that everything an enrolled militia member does is under obligation of law -- NOT ANY RIGHT -- with legal penalties for refusing to muster when called or otherwise not complying.

No aspect of militia service is ever associated with any "right"; there was/is no free will or discretionary aspect afforded to the citizen when enrolled in militia service.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia is clearly expressed as being necessary, not optional like the unorganized militia. Thus, well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not enjoy that "exemption" and must be in strict subordination to the civil authority.

 

[Abatis]

well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

Can you point to any example in law when a militia member claimed any protections under the 2nd Amendment? I'll try to ask again, what "right" does the 2nd protect for a militia member?

The law (the Militia Acts, written under §8 powers, NOT THE 2ND AMENDMENT) directs everything an enrolled militia member does from the moment of enrollment:

• "every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

What part of that is either the exercise of a right or an example of the protection of a right?

When one reads the Bill of Rights we see militia members who are in the employ of the federal government, excluded from grand jury protections of the 5th Amendment; one is prosecuted under the UCMJ for any crimes committed.

Being an enrolled militia member is not an exercise of any rights, it is pure obligation, the absence of rights, you are under the complete direction of either the states or the federal government.

The unorganized militia does not enjoy that "exemption" and must be in strict subordination to the civil authority.

JHC, you are backwards . . . You are claiming those who are under the complete control of law are exercising rights, and the citizens, "the people", who are not bound by militia law and are expressly exempted from all government powers regarding the right to keep and bear arms, are actually the ones bound by law.

Your position is, and will always be, legally incoherent.

.

 

[danielpalos]

Can you point to any example in law when a militia member claimed any protections under the 2nd Amendment? I'll try to ask again, what "right" does the 2nd protect for a militia member?

Our Civil War is proof. The North had to win because Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of All of the other ones.

Your position is irrelevant since the unorganized militia, as Individuals of the People, are subject to the police power of their State or the Union.

For example: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[AZrailwhale]

This is obviously saying the people as a whole ARE the unorganized militia that need to keep well versed in firearms.
The organized militia can then draw on this constantly firearm familiar pool when needed.

Sure the federal government is authorized to organize, arm, and discipline the organized Militia when needed.
But that can not happen if the people as a whole are not in possession of firearms, so they are familiar.

And clearly only part of the militia are ever called up.
Your quote says that.
{... for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States ...}

The government is only authorized to "organize, arm and discipline the organized militia" when it's called to federal service.

 

[Abatis]

Our Civil War is proof. The North had to win because Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of All of the other ones.

You still refuse to answer my questions:

What need does a militia member have, for a, "right to keep and bear arms"?

Can you point to any example in law when a militia member claimed any protections under the 2nd Amendment?


SCOTUS has a series of militia cases and a separate and distinct series of 2nd Amendment / RKBA cases. The two lines do not cross or mingle, the 2nd Amendment cases NEVER have had a militia member claiming the protections of the 2nd Amendment, nor do they ever have a state claiming the 2ndA protects a state's interest or authority to direct its militia from federal interference.

Your Civil War example fails when one recognizes Congress disbanded state militias because they were the enforcers of the "special laws" focused on Blacks.

The members of those disbanded militias, released from their enrollment and impressment and thus private citizens, were not disarmed because of their right secured to them by the 2nd Amendment.

There are no "militia rights" for anyone (citizen or state) to claim for any reason or purpose under the 2nd Amendment.

Your position is irrelevant since the unorganized militia, as Individuals of the People, are subject to the police power of their State or the Union.

Who claims the 2nd Amendment ever protected private citizens from police operations? The 2nd Amendment had no effect on state powers, including police powers.

For example: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

That is perhaps the worst state provision to cite for anything pertaining to rights . . . That was enacted in 1970 following the race riots and DNC Convention unrest and it certainly was not enacted to protect rights; it was enacted to justify gun control in Chicago and the police powers used to disarm the citizens, especially Black ones . . .

Again, the 2nd Amendment had no effect or impact on state powers; whatever right to arms state citizens possessed were only those recognized and secured under their state constitutions. Some states have strong right to arms provisions, some none, and one, conditioned by the "police power" . . .

We see what kinds of laws the states with no right to arms provisions have; NY, NJ, MD, CA, and the states with carve-outs authorizing anti-gun police action like Illinois' . . . And none of that was impacted in the least by the 2nd Amendment until 2010, when SCOTUS spoke in McDonald -- and about what?

The Chicago handgun ban . . .

.

 

[justoffal]

I think SCOTUS will throw out the New York law.

At the least they'll tell New York to try again and not to be so extreme next time.

They actually have no choice but to put it down because it sets a precedent that will creep over into other civil rights. There's no way to stop it from happening if they leave it standing.

 

[danielpalos]

What need does a militia member have, for a, "right to keep and bear arms"?

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Our civil war is one example.

 

[danielpalos]

Who claims the 2nd Amendment ever protected private citizens from police operations? The 2nd Amendment had no effect on state powers, including police powers.

You have a right to due process not a shoot out with police.

 

[danielpalos]

The Chicago handgun ban . . .

In other words, Police have no civil duty to question or disarm Individual, criminals of the People who may be keeping and bearing Arms?

 

[Abatis]

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment. Our civil war is one example.

So, you only have your goofy opinion, divorced from any association with the Constitution or law and you are compelled to repeat it like a robot, without any reference to what was said to you.

 

[danielpalos]

So, you only have your goofy opinion, divorced from any association with the Constitution or law and you are compelled to repeat it like a robot, without any reference to what was said to you.

Not at all. It is merely Your understanding that is deficient. How many people were charged with murder during our civil war? And, the North had to win Because Only Well Regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

 

[Abatis]

Not at all. It is merely Your understanding that is deficient. How many people were charged with murder during our civil war? And, the North had to win Because Only Well Regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

And again, the very existence of the official militias of states was extinguished, stomped out because they were terrorizing people and committing murder.

No state and certainly no militia member ever claimed this imaginary, "literal recourse to our Second Amendment". Those militias enforcing the laws of their state and bearing arms while undertaking those enforcement actions, were the cause of the dissolution of those militias, not their protection.

Saying there is a "literal recourse" means there is a "literal" written framework in law that can be pointed to; a "recourse", means there is an established legal process to remedy a claim in law.

If such a condition existed, surely you can quote and cite one example of this "literal recourse" being claimed and recognized for any member of the "well regulated militia".

Does this "literal recourse" only exist in your mind as a theoretical concept, employed only to prop-up your goofy personal opinion of the 2nd Amendment?

For me to recognize your theory as having any validity as a point in law, you have to cite it in law and how it has been enforced in law.

Problem for you is you can't show any such condition ever existed for the 2nd Amendment. You are just slinging your incoherent imagination; your repetition seems more intended to reinforce it in your own mind than trying to convince anyone else . . . If you were trying to convince anyone else, especially someone with some knowledge in the topic, you would give it more effort than just mindlessly repeating the same thing, over and over.

Is that really all you got?

.

 

[danielpalos]

And again, the very existence of the official militias of states was extinguished, stomped out because they were terrorizing people and committing murder.

No state and certainly no militia member ever claimed this imaginary, "literal recourse to our Second Amendment". Those militias enforcing the laws of their state and bearing arms while undertaking those enforcement actions, were the cause of the dissolution of those militias, not their protection.

Saying there is a "literal recourse" means there is a "literal" written framework in law that can be pointed to; a "recourse", means there is an established legal process to remedy a claim in law.

If such a condition existed, surely you can quote and cite one example of this "literal recourse" being claimed and recognized for any member of the "well regulated militia".

Does this "literal recourse" only exist in your mind as a theoretical concept, employed only to prop-up your goofy personal opinion of the 2nd Amendment?

For me to recognize your theory as having any validity as a point in law, you have to cite it in law and how it has been enforced in law.

Problem for you is you can't show any such condition ever existed for the 2nd Amendment. You are just slinging your incoherent imagination; your repetition seems more intended to reinforce it in your own mind than trying to convince anyone else . . . If you were trying to convince anyone else, especially someone with some knowledge in the topic, you would give it more effort than just mindlessly repeating the same thing, over and over.

Is that really all you got?

.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Exactly.
Without the right to bear arms, then you end up with no rights at all.

I'm not at all sure where we agree and disagree here.