2nd Amendment - "Miltia" - US Constitution - Mentioned How Times

[Abatis]

I know that North Carolina has a State militia separate from the national Guard. And I believe other States do as well.

Well, in exchange for completely extinguishing all state militia powers and rendering Art I, § 8, cl. 16 moot, Congress gave the states lovely parting gifts called "State Defensive Forces" which allow them to form emergency forces supposedly exempt from federal control to be used at the governor's discretion. They have zero connection to true Art I, § 8, cl 15 & 16 militia powers (as intended).

AFAIK North Carolina is not among the states exercising that privilege; whatever force you are describing is operating completely outside of 32 USC § 109 and subject to being told to cease operations.

Further private militias may form unless specifically barred by State law but they must acquiesce to State and federal Control when so ordered.. . .

Correct, no entity but Congress possesses any power to form, organize, train, drill or deploy citizens as militia and state and private formations have no legal standing or any claimable immunity against legal constraints . . .

IOW, there is no "right" for anyone, state or citizen, to form a militia.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I know that North Carolina has a State militia separate from the national Guard. And I believe other States do as well.

Well, in exchange for completely extinguishing all state militia powers and rendering Art I, § 8, cl. 16 moot, Congress gave the states lovely parting gifts called "State Defensive Forces" which allow them to form emergency forces supposedly exempt from federal control to be used at the governor's discretion. They have zero connection to true Art I, § 8, cl 15 & 16 militia powers (as intended).

AFAIK North Carolina is not among the states exercising that privilege; whatever force you are describing is operating completely outside of 32 USC § 109 and subject to being told to cease operations.

Further private militias may form unless specifically barred by State law but they must acquiesce to State and federal Control when so ordered.. . .

Correct, no entity but Congress possesses any power to form, organize, train, drill or deploy citizens as militia and state and private formations have no legal standing or any claimable immunity against legal constraints . . .

IOW, there is no "right" for anyone, state or citizen, to form a militia.

Ever heard of the unorganized militia? guess not huh?

 

[Abatis]

Ever heard of the unorganized militia? guess not huh?

UN-organized being the important distinction.

As I said, no entity but Congress possesses any power to form, organize, train, drill or deploy citizens as militia and state (since 1903 and 1916 Acts of Congress) and private formations have no legal standing or any claimable immunity against legal constraints . . .

IOW, there is no "right" for anyone, state or citizen, to form a militia.

The right that the people (the unorganized militia) possess to form and organize and deploy only becomes actionable when the people have rescinded their consent to be governed and have reclaimed the powers surrendered when the Constitution was established. Until then, sorry, there is no "right" (exception of power / claimable immunity from law) to form, organize, train, drill or deploy citizens as militia.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ever heard of the unorganized militia? guess not huh?

UN-organized being the important distinction.

As I said, no entity but Congress possesses any power to form, organize, train, drill or deploy citizens as militia and state (since 1903 and 1916 Acts of Congress) and private formations have no legal standing or any claimable immunity against legal constraints . . .

IOW, there is no "right" for anyone, state or citizen, to form a militia.

The right that the people (the unorganized militia) possess to form and organize and deploy only becomes actionable when the people have rescinded their consent to be governed and have reclaimed the powers surrendered when the Constitution was established. Until then, sorry, there is no "right" (exception of power / claimable immunity from law) to form, organize, train, drill or deploy citizens as militia.

No you haven't heard of the unorganized militia.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
Look it up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Many conservatives are so easily hooked.

and you're just an idiot sometimes an even bigger idiot than danty.

You’re the one who has taken the bait, making moronic statements about an ‘unorganized militia,’ just as the OP intended.

You and your nitwit friends are at liberty to march around in the woods with your guns like clueless, ignorant schoolchildren, and you may call yourselves whatever you want.

But it will be pointless and meaningless, you’ll constitute no ‘militia,’ you’ll ‘defend’ against no ‘enemy’ as the entire notion of a ‘citizen army’ in the 21st Century is a pathetic anachronism.

And if you violate any Federal, state, or local laws concerning firearms, you and your ‘militia’ will be arrested and prosecuted in accordance with those laws.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Many conservatives are so easily hooked.

and you're just an idiot sometimes an even bigger idiot than danty.

You’re the one who has taken the bait, making moronic statements about an ‘unorganized militia,’ just as the OP intended.

You and your nitwit friends are at liberty to march around in the woods with your guns like clueless, ignorant schoolchildren, and you may call yourselves whatever you want.

But it will be pointless and meaningless, you’ll constitute no ‘militia,’ you’ll ‘defend’ against no ‘enemy’ as the entire notion of a ‘citizen army’ in the 21st Century is a pathetic anachronism.

And if you violate any Federal, state, or local laws concerning firearms, you and your ‘militia’ will be arrested and prosecuted in accordance with those laws.

is that supposed to mean any fucking thing? You support obama yet forget about the laws he has violated. Move along little turd, your idiocy is noted.

 

[editec]

This thread is dead ^^^^^^^^^^

Was it ever alive?

It is an invitation to post without really offering a point of view.

 

[Abatis]

Ever heard of the unorganized militia? guess not huh?

UN-organized being the important distinction.

No you haven't heard of the unorganized militia.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
Look it up.

I am quite familiar with that.

That section was also created in the early 20th Century when all militia powers were federalized.

Please explain precisely why you feel you need to rely on / cite 10 USC § 311 for anything.

I am puzzled.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

UN-organized being the important distinction.

No you haven't heard of the unorganized militia.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
Look it up.

I am quite familiar with that.

That section was also created in the early 20th Century when all militia powers were federalized.

Please explain precisely why you feel you need to rely on / cite 10 USC § 311 for anything.

I am puzzled.

Exactly what part don't you comprehend? the unorganized militia is free from the national guard it is not part of the federal government it is maned by citizens who must supply their own weapons and supplies.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How many times is the term militia, mentioned throughout the whole of the US Constitution;

The word appears six times. Four mentions in the body of the Constitution and twice in the Bill of Rights.

what roles, duties, obligations, and powers are prescribed to the individual states as a whole;

The states are charged with the appointment of militia officers and implementing the organization and training regimen established by Congress.

what roles, duties, obligations, and powers are prescribed to the national government?

Congress has sole authority to prescribe the means of calling up and enrolling and manner of organizing the citizens as militia and establishing the training regimen to be used by the states. Congress possesses the power to federalize whatever state militias it deems necessary to respond to certain dangers to the federal government. Congress also possesses the power to prescribe how the militia shall procure their arms and what types of arms are to be mustered with.

There are specific circumstances under which Congress and the President directly control the militia. These distinctions are quite important for the division of militia command and control. They are in fact, strict limits of federal power.

Congress possesses the power to "govern" the militia but only "such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States".

Similarly, the President is of course Commander in Chief of the militia but not all the time . . . He can directly command, "the militia of the several States," but only "when called into the actual service of the United States".

This reading follows the canon of statutory interpretation of expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others") the authority of Congress "to govern," and the President to be CiC, only begins when the militia are formally called for service by Congress for duty to the nation. That power is limited further to only the part in actual service. That would stop Congress calling to service only say the Boston companies and having the entirety of the Massachusetts militia falling under Congressional control or calling up one state's militia and then all the states' militias falling under the control of Congress.

All this leads to perhaps a stupid question:

What constitutional authority does Congress actually have to dictate to a private citizen, 1), not enrolled in his state's militia, and 2), his state having no part of its militia called into actual service or employed in service of the nation, that only certain weapons are permitted by law?

It seems to me, again, using the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others"), a private citizen and his personal arms are twice removed from having any federal authority being brought to bear upon him (under the auspices of militia regulation).

It seems to me that the "unorganized militia" of the US Code are immune by direct exclusion from control by Congress and the President. The private citizen and his personal arms are only directly addressed in the 2nd Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Additionally and proving my point, if suspected of committing a, "capital, or otherwise infamous crime," the unorganized militia are afforded the Grand Jury protections of the 5th Amendment, but, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; . . . . an enrolled, active militia member would be subject to military law and court martial.

Note that there is no distinction stated for actual service of or employment by the United States. It seems that even if only called up / employed by their state, they are subject to federal military law.

Interesting. . .

The 2nd..you missed part of it...
"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."

Then we have this: Congress has sole authority to prescribe the means of calling up and enrolling and manner of organizing the citizens as militia and establishing the training regimen to be used by the states. Congress possesses the power to federalize whatever state militias it deems necessary to respond to certain dangers to the federal government. Congress also possesses the power to prescribe how the militia shall procure their arms and what types of arms are to be mustered with."

I support the 2nd, but people dance around the text. Why? I suspect the term 'militia' is often misunderstood if understood at all, and I suspect some people need to seperate the 'right' to bear arms out the text of the 2nd in order to make a complicated argument simple enough for the average citizen

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I know that North Carolina has a State militia separate from the national Guard. And I believe other States do as well.

Further private militias may form unless specifically barred by State law but they must acquiesce to State and federal Control when so ordered. In the Civil War in the South many private Militias fell under both State and Confederate control.

A militia is by definition part time unless called to duty by the State or Federal Government, so those organizations that maintain armed members at all times are not militias. Unless only a small segment of the Militia is armed and on duty all the time.

Counties and cities could unless barred by State law create their own militias and those would fall under State or federal Control if either called them up.

One could argue that every able bodied man 17 to 45 should own a long firearm. And a stash of ammo for that weapon.

Yet the US Constitution mentions militias and their roles and Congress' duties and obligations/power over them. How does a 'private' militia square with the USC?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=5176]RetiredGySgt[/MENTION]

Private militias covered in USC?

 

[Abatis]

The 2nd..you missed part of it...
"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."

I didn't miss it; I answered your question about how many times it is mentioned and noted, "The word appears six times. Four mentions in the body of the Constitution and twice in the Bill of Rights."

Then we have this:

Congress has sole authority to prescribe the means of calling up and enrolling and manner of organizing the citizens as militia and establishing the training regimen to be used by the states. Congress possesses the power to federalize whatever state militias it deems necessary to respond to certain dangers to the federal government. Congress also possesses the power to prescribe how the militia shall procure their arms and what types of arms are to be mustered with.

Which was offered as the opening of the answer to your question, "what roles, duties, obligations, and powers are prescribed to the national government?"

You received direct and precise answers to your questions and yet reply to them with vague and wandering statements that neither agree or disagree . . . Supwiddat?

I support the 2nd, but people dance around the text. Why? I suspect the term 'militia' is often misunderstood if understood at all, and I suspect some people need to seperate the 'right' to bear arms out the text of the 2nd in order to make a complicated argument simple enough for the average citizen

You didn't ask any question about the object, (intent), action and enforcement of the 2nd Amendment, you only asked, "what roles, duties, obligations, and powers are prescribed to the individual states as a whole;" and "what roles, duties, obligations, and powers are prescribed to the national government?" . . .

The opening statement of your OP alluded that the purpose of this thread was to discuss the "reading and interpreting of the 2nd Amendment" but your questions had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment holds no weight, it neither commands nor binds action, it has never been inspected by Congress to inform on any aspect of militia power (federal or state) because it does not create any new structures of militia organization, training or control nor does it modify the powers of militia organization, training and control enumerated in Article 1, § 8, clauses 15 & 16 of the Constitution. Additionally, the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment has never been held by SCOTUS to demand or direct any structure of organization, training or control be established or maintained. SCOTUS has said that the full execution of militia powers is found in Article 1, § 8, cl. 16.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court has told us that it is, "one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government" and has made it clear that the only thing that can be taken away from a reading of the 2nd Amendment is that the (pre-existing and fully retained by the people) right to arms shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment does not speak of powers that can be exercised, it only speaks of rights retained by the people (absence of powers). So, in entering into any discussion of the 2nd Amendment, it would serve you well to begin your consideration with the understanding that the 2nd Amendment has only one "action", to redundantly forbid the government to exercise of powers that were never granted to it.

 

[Abatis]

Yet the US Constitution mentions militias and their roles and Congress' duties and obligations/power over them. How does a 'private' militia square with the USC?

There is no allowance in the Constitution for private citizens to organize themselves, train, drill or deploy themselves as militia.

The power to establish the rules, means and conditions to organize, train, drill and deploy citizens as militia has been conferred to the federal government thus there is no "right" (exception of power) to be claimed by a citizen thus there is no immunity from laws forbidding private citizens to organize themselves (see Presser v Illinois):

"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. . . .

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."

​

A state has the prerogative to allow such private entities to exist but it also can restrict / forbid such assemblies as well and the citizens have no recourse as far as a rights deprivation claim goes . . .

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=30141]Abatis[/MENTION]. You write in response...

You didn't ask any question about the object, (intent), action and enforcement of the 2nd Amendment...

The opening statement of your OP alluded that the purpose of this thread was to discuss the "reading and interpreting of the 2nd Amendment" but...

but what? wtf do you think conversation is, a term paper?

Do we have another frustrated failure from Academia or worse...a self-educated Pedant?

 

[Abatis]

but what? wtf do you think conversation is, a term paper?

So someone actually considering your questions and answering them is not acceptable either?

I answered your questions with "honesty" and "integrity".

I am able to "read and comprehend" those "compound questions" without trying to "read into them".

I applied my "critical thinking skill sets" and answered your questions in a reasoned, detached manner with specifics and support.

Neither do I consider my answers to be "assumptions that take things off topic" so it puzzled me that someone who would so vitriolically chastise other's replies and calling them a "true dumbass" and "Imbecile" and "Moron in Chief" would offer such an anemic emotionally based reply to my answers.

It is so pathetic we should really look at it again:

I support the 2nd, but people dance around the text. Why? I suspect the term 'militia' is often misunderstood if understood at all, and I suspect some people need to seperate the 'right' to bear arms out the text of the 2nd in order to make a complicated argument simple enough for the average citizen

What the hell is that mealy-mouthed mush supposed to mean in the context of my answers to your questions? What is your support for saying any of that to me? Does it look like I'm dancing around the text? What do you think I don't understand? Are you capable of articulating more than insults?

Do we have another frustrated failure from Academia or worse...a self-educated Pedant?

It doesn't matter because while you are so eager to throw around insults about other's intelligence, "So simple, yet the right wing here @ usmb struggles with it", when presented with on-point rebuttal you wimp out and demonstrate the character deficiencies you assign to everyone else.

Projection much?

You are an arrogant without substance fraud and a whining wuss . . . Like many anti-gun constitutional ignoramuses, you have nothing but insults, fallacies, anger and projection to "argue" with.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

but what? wtf do you think conversation is, a term paper?

So someone actually considering your questions and answering them is not acceptable either?

I answered your questions with "honesty" and "integrity".

I am able to "read and comprehend" those "compound questions" without trying to "read into them".

I applied my "critical thinking skill sets" and answered your questions in a reasoned, detached manner with specifics and support.

Neither do I consider my answers to be "assumptions that take things off topic" so it puzzled me that someone who would so vitriolically chastise other's replies and calling them a "true dumbass" and "Imbecile" and "Moron in Chief" would offer such an anemic emotionally based reply to my answers.

It is so pathetic we should really look at it again:

I support the 2nd, but people dance around the text. Why? I suspect the term 'militia' is often misunderstood if understood at all, and I suspect some people need to seperate the 'right' to bear arms out the text of the 2nd in order to make a complicated argument simple enough for the average citizen

What the hell is that mealy-mouthed mush supposed to mean in the context of my answers to your questions? What is your support for saying any of that to me? Does it look like I'm dancing around the text? What do you think I don't understand? Are you capable of articulating more than insults?

Do we have another frustrated failure from Academia or worse...a self-educated Pedant?

It doesn't matter because while you are so eager to throw around insults about other's intelligence, "So simple, yet the right wing here @ usmb struggles with it", when presented with on-point rebuttal you wimp out and demonstrate the character deficiencies you assign to everyone else.

Projection much?

You are an arrogant without substance fraud and a whining wuss . . . Like many anti-gun constitutional ignoramuses, you have nothing but insults, fallacies, anger and projection to "argue" with.

Dante is on the record support the spirit if not all of the arguments of recent 2nd amendment case decisions of tbe SCOTUS. gawd, you are pathetic.

Unlike you Dante revisits and questions issues as he gathers more information. No rigid support here. Kneejerk assholehood is for others like you

Single issue politics is too intellectually inferior and emotionally stunting for Dante. We love politics, not guns, not gays, not even god. We love politics

 

[Abatis]

Dante is on the record support the spirit if not all of the arguments of recent 2nd amendment case decisions of tbe SCOTUS. gawd, you are pathetic.

Dante is a disingenuous liar. The jester is the perfect symbol for you.

Unlike you Dante revisits and questions issues as he gathers more information. No rigid support here. Kneejerk assholehood is for others like you

Dante is a insecure progressive who is incapable of holding himself to any principle which is why he is so confused about the operation of the Constitution. The Constitution's meaning does not alter with the progression of Dante's liberal enlightenment.

Single issue politics is too intellectually inferior and emotionally stunting for Dante. We love politics, not guns, not gays, not even god. We love politics

This discussion is about the operation of the Constitution not "guns". That you are capable of dissecting the 2nd Amendment out of the principles of the Constitution, treat it as an outlier and pervert it and mutate it into meaninglessness shows that it is you who are stuck in the single issue mudhole.

The continued lack of on-topic reply to my answers to your question is noted.

The continued use of personal attacks as a proxy for reasoned debate again speaks quite clearly of your honesty, intellectual integrity and character.

The reference to yourself in the third person is just further evidence that you are not a person to be taken seriously.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante is most definitely hostile to progressivism...

 

[Abatis]

Dante is most definitely hostile to progressivism...

Dante is most definitely in denial.

When Dante figures out that I fulfilled all his demands, took his questions at face value and answered them with integrity perhaps he will act in a manner that he demands of others and engage in reasoned discussion. Dante recognizes divisions of opinion exist but he is unwilling to accept any oppositional argument in this thread supposedly premised on exploring those divisions and responds like a spoiled child when other opinions are posted.

Dante obviously has an anti-right agenda to serve but you need to ask him if he started this thread just to troll up and then denigrate and ridicule others or demonstrate the "honesty, integrity, and . . . character" he laments as missing from the discussion.

Tell Dante to put some big-boy underpants on and stop being a bitch.