What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
7,317
Points
290
Funny how the 2nd Amendment also doesn't have an except for clause, no mentions of bans, but is pretty damn specific about the rights of the people.
In the context of a "Well Regulated Militia..."
I've also posted several quotes by the founding fathers that verify an individuals right to self-defense.
I must have missed those. Can you post those (only) again?
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
Thank you. I looked into this and found that Thomas Jefferson was pretty much the only Founding Father that did so. He also advocated "spilling the blood of Tyrants" referring to the very government he was the head of.

Virtually every other FF spoke of the "right to bear arms" only in the context of the militia
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
7,317
Points
290
An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?
.

The Dick Act codified two types of militia. The Organized Militia (National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia which was mandated as only being males from 17-45.

In other words ONLY males between 17 and 45 have any Federal 'right to bear arms'
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,786
Reaction score
7,317
Points
290
An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?
What is a militia? Federal and state laws generally use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government to defend the United States or an individual state. See 10 U.S.C. § 246. When not called forth, they are sometimes referred to as the “unorganized militia.” A group of people who consider themselves part of the able-bodied residents referred to as members of the militia under state or federal law is not legally permitted to activate itself for duty. A private militia that attempts to activate itself for duty, outside of the authority of the state or federal government, is illegal.
 

Mad_Jack_Flint

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
2,977
Points
1,918
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

Banning is not needed when the U.S. Government can take the same route they took with Machine Guns and requirements to own one, and my bet is the USSC will uphold the law...

Am I for it?

No, but seeing there are requirements to own certain firearms like Machine Guns mean that it could also be applied to AR-15’s and weapons like it...
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,725
Reaction score
6,396
Points
1,130
Dumb shit, a commander commanding his army has NOTHING to do with the kind of protected privater militias guaranteed by the Bill of Rights written long after the fact and confirmed by our own Supreme Court as an inalienable right, dumb shit! You are such a stupid shit you actually believe a government, already giving itself the right to command federal armies for the defense of our borders would again reiterate that same right in a separate document specifically naming the PEOPLE! What a stupid shit you are. You don't deserve to vote.

You never fail to deliver!

Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias. In Wyoming, however, state law forbids the very formation of private militias. Under section 19-1-106 of the Wyoming Statutes, "No body of men other than the regularly organized national guard or the troops of the United States shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with arms without license of the governor."

Read more: Second Amendment - Private Militias - Government, Law, Freemen, and Public - JRank Articles Second Amendment - Private Militias

In states that do not outlaw them, private militias are limited only by the criminal laws applicable to all of society. Thus, if an armed private militia seeks to parade and exercise in a public area, its members will be subject to arrest on a variety of laws, including disturbing-the-peace, firearms, or even riot statutes.

Many private militias are driven by the insurrection theory of the Second Amendment. Under this view, the Second Amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms for SELF-DEFENSE and for rebellion against a tyrannical government—when a government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to "insurrect," or take up arms against it.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. According to the Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951), "[W]hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,796
Reaction score
3,664
Points
290
Location
Washington State
Thirdly, "the militia" now is the "unorganized militia" which is every male from a certain age to a certain age, and the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" exists as a non-entity to stop people demanding their right to "bear arms", otherwise known as the right to be in the militia.
This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: 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.

Okay. So, a couple of points:

First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.

You are right, it does not say that so one wonders why you even bring it up as it is not relevant in any way.

What it CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states is that the right of the people. Not the right of the state, not the right of the government, not the power of a state, not anything other than the right of the people. Period. End of story. ESDG

The second is clearly an individual right as are EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT mentioned in the BoR. The BoR is, was and forever will be limitations on what the federal government can do. EVERY. SINGLE. AMENDMENT. All of them in the BoR are limitations on the feds in respect to the people. They are not prescriptions on powers the feds have which is exactly what you are making this out to be - a power that the feds or the state has rather than a right the people have.

That the AND is missing from the amendment does not mean the right of the people does not exist. Rather it directly contradicts your statement, if the and had existed THEN you might have a point in claiming you have the 'right' to join a militia however it does not. Even then it would be take pretzel logic to make that key point go away, that the amendment directly states the right of the people. The prefatory clause is clearly outlining the purpose of the right: Well regulated militias are important for a free state as the founders knew because the 'well regulated' militia was key in making the US a free state. Because the militia is made up of the people, they must both be armed and in well regulated order. That is exactly what Miller found:

" The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998). "

Heller also covers the idea that you 'can join' a militia as something you are simply interjecting into the meaning. The militia is, essentially, everyone.
"Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. 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."

Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.
Well, no and Heller addressed that as well:

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Which has actually been used in the past but fell out of traditional use pretty quickly after the nation was established. Either way, the prefatory statement not only does not remove the individual right but it would be rather nonsensical to demand that the necessity of a well trained militia being necessary for a free state would somehow equate to removing the right that such a well regulated force would require to exist at all. It is an illogical conclusion to draw.

Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.
Nope, it never says we can run around like Yosemite Sam but no one anywhere is advocating for that so your straw man is pointless. You start out stating that the meaning of the second is pretty clear, make a statement about what it does not say and then go on to utterly and unequivocally ignore the text of the second applying what you want it to mean.

Here is the bottom line - it is a simple fact that the second protects your individual right to bear arms that are both in common use throughout the nation and in military use, period. Trying to read that out of the amendment is simply not possible while being honest with its intent or wording. I get it that many think the amendment is outdated and incorrect in a modern society considering the changes that have happened to arms in the intervening 2 centuries. However, it requires an amendment to change the second and nothing less will do. The left has been trying to pretend basic terminology means something it does not because they know that bar is high but that is simply not going to work. Stop trying to reinterpret the second to something it is not.
I just read the Amendment. I didn't add anything, I didn't subtract anything. Looks pretty clear.
No, you made up what you wanted the amendment to say as it does not say anything even remotely what you claim. I have shown you quotes from Heller that establish what those phrases actually mean.

Then, you ignore all of that, ignore the plan reading of the text and reassert you just 'read' the amendment. Try again.
Just reading the actual Amendment. I don't expect you folks to like it.
Oh I get it.

You have been arguing with Trumpsters for so long you only know how to act like one now.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
30,378
Reaction score
14,544
Points
1,600
Location
Tejas
Under section 19-1-106 of the Wyoming Statutes, "No body of men other than the regularly organized national guard or the troops of the United States shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with arms without license of the governor
That is entirely unconstitutional. The fact that it has likely NEVER been enforced is the only reason it is still on the books.

It's a violation of the 1st Amendment, at the very least.

Just because legislatures pass stupid, authoritarian laws does not mean those laws are valid.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,725
Reaction score
6,396
Points
1,130
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.


Heller and Caetano, the Supreme Court rulings say you are wrong.


I cited actual supreme Court rulings.......Heller makes any rifle ban unConstitutional...that the lower courts are ignoring Heller, Caetano and Miller doesn't make their actions Constitutional, just illegal.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT
no leftists who support tyranny are stupid
you are a moron

But anyone who believes we elected a tyrannical government that is split damn near 50-50 with the tie breaker going to the Democrats, while Republican have a majority of State Governments, is truly a moron.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,725
Reaction score
6,396
Points
1,130
Under section 19-1-106 of the Wyoming Statutes, "No body of men other than the regularly organized national guard or the troops of the United States shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with arms without license of the governor
That is entirely unconstitutional. The fact that it has likely NEVER been enforced is the only reason it is still on the books.

It's a violation of the 1st Amendment, at the very least.

Just because legislatures pass stupid, authoritarian laws does not mean those laws are valid.


Gun clubs can call themselves Militias, but they are still subject to he same gun laws as every other citizen of their state.
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
671
Reaction score
627
Points
873
An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?
What is a militia? Federal and state laws generally use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government to defend the United States or an individual state. See 10 U.S.C. § 246. When not called forth, they are sometimes referred to as the “unorganized militia.” A group of people who consider themselves part of the able-bodied residents referred to as members of the militia under state or federal law is not legally permitted to activate itself for duty. A private militia that attempts to activate itself for duty, outside of the authority of the state or federal government, is illegal.

There's no law prohibiting the formation of a militia.
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
671
Reaction score
627
Points
873
An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?
.

The Dick Act codified two types of militia. The Organized Militia (National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia which was mandated as only being males from 17-45.

In other words ONLY males between 17 and 45 have any Federal 'right to bear arms'

The Constitution doesn't mention age, nor gender. It says "the people". That's everybody.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,725
Reaction score
6,396
Points
1,130
So the founders in writing the Bill of Rights were protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to be armed.

Correct, to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies. First at the local level where most of "the people" were the able bodied white property owners, who were obligated to join the local militia and provide their own personal weapons. They protected the elected Government who were of the People. The elected Governor of the State could call them up to protect the State, as could the elected President and CiC of the nation.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?
.

The Dick Act codified two types of militia. The Organized Militia (National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia which was mandated as only being males from 17-45.

In other words ONLY males between 17 and 45 have any Federal 'right to bear arms'
Women are entitled to the franchise now.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
65,060
Reaction score
13,752
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
The militia is controlled by the people.

You really never grasp a discussion. I'll try to give it one more shot.

Let's say you're into golf. The club you belong to says,

Because we love well disciplined golfers, your right as a member at our club to golf shall not be limited. Golf all you want!

That isn't a limit on your right to golf, it's saying they expect you are like them.

Is this really that hard for you?
That’s a great analogy given the tournament I just watched. Now that my right to golf shall not be limited does that mean I can take 20 clubs with me during a tournament and give myself 2 mulligans a round, drive a cart across the greens, tee off during somebody elses tee time, etc?

Yes, your right to have guns means that you are Constitutionally protected when you to cheat in shooting competitions. That was exactly my point.

Every time I think you can't be more stupid than I already think you are, you prove me wrong.

I mean oh my God, so kaz, you're saying the second amendment means I can cheat in shooting competitions!!!!

You are a total fucktard. Unbelievable
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
65,060
Reaction score
13,752
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
Ok so Whalen they say a well controlled militia... how is the militia controlled? What are the boundaries for control and who defines and enforced those boundaries?

The militia is controlled by the people.

You really never grasp a discussion. I'll try to give it one more shot.

Let's say you're into golf. The club you belong to says,

Because we love well disciplined golfers, your right as a member at our club to golf shall not be limited. Golf all you want!

That isn't a limit on your right to golf, it's saying they expect you are like them.

Is this really that hard for you?
That is the dumbest thing I've heard all day.

That sound was another one flying over your head

:itsok:
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
65,060
Reaction score
13,752
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
So the founders in writing the Bill of Rights were protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to be armed.

Correct, to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies. First at the local level where most of "the people" were the able bodied white property owners, who were obligated to join the local militia and provide their own personal weapons. They protected the elected Government who were of the People. The elected Governor of the State could call them up to protect the State, as could the elected President and CiC of the nation.



So now the Bill of Rights was to protect government power over the people, you actually said that.

:bowdown:

You are the dumbest Democrat ever. Wow, what an accomplishment.

And you know that when it contradicts every writing by every founding father ever.

You have achieved full sheep
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
66,952
Reaction score
3,647
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
So the founders in writing the Bill of Rights were protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to be armed.

Correct, to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies. First at the local level where most of "the people" were the able bodied white property owners, who were obligated to join the local militia and provide their own personal weapons. They protected the elected Government who were of the People. The elected Governor of the State could call them up to protect the State, as could the elected President and CiC of the nation.



So now the Bill of Rights was to protect government power over the people, you actually said that.

:bowdown:

You are the dumbest Democrat ever. Wow, what an accomplishment.

And you know that when it contradicts every writing by every founding father ever.

You have achieved full sheep
Our Second Amendment is about States' sovereign rights not individual liberty.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
65,060
Reaction score
13,752
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
So the founders in writing the Bill of Rights were protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to be armed.

Correct, to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies. First at the local level where most of "the people" were the able bodied white property owners, who were obligated to join the local militia and provide their own personal weapons. They protected the elected Government who were of the People. The elected Governor of the State could call them up to protect the State, as could the elected President and CiC of the nation.

Deep thoughts, by Jack Handey: When the founders created the Constitution, they wanted to limit government power. So they created a bill of rights, rights that were so basic the rights could NEVER be taken by government.

BlindBoob: And the second of those rights was the right of government to be armed because government is the people ...

I'd ask why they needed the other nine them limiting government power, but we've clearly hit the bottom of this well ...
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
72,526
Reaction score
14,036
Points
2,180
An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?
Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
37,725
Reaction score
6,396
Points
1,130
So the founders in writing the Bill of Rights were protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to be armed.

Correct, to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies. First at the local level where most of "the people" were the able bodied white property owners, who were obligated to join the local militia and provide their own personal weapons. They protected the elected Government who were of the People. The elected Governor of the State could call them up to protect the State, as could the elected President and CiC of the nation.



So now the Bill of Rights was to protect government power over the people, you actually said that.

:bowdown:

You are the dumbest Democrat ever. Wow, what an accomplishment.

And you know that when it contradicts every writing by every founding father ever.

You have achieved full sheep

In reference to the State Militias " to protect the Elected Government and the People who elected them from all enemies.". There was no standing army.

Restricting the Federal government from confiscating weapons like the real tyrants in England did.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top