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

[danielpalos]

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.

I don't live in Illinois. Illinois law and Illinois constitution do not apply in Alaska. And I'm originally from Washington. Read Section 24 of Article I of Washington's state constitution.

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Defense of self or the State is pretty specific.

 

[Lesh]

The mention of a well-regulated militia or its necessity is not a bar to the people's gun rights.

No. Bit it is the only FEDERAL protection of them...as it regards to a Well Regulated Militia...no matter what Scalia said in his judicial activist ruling

 

[danielpalos]

Our own Civil War proved only well regulated militia may not be infringed, regardless of all of the other ones.

 

[BlindBoo]

The obvious meaning of the word "well regulated" is to be familiar and in possession of personal arms.

At the time it meant well trained in how to fight as a unit. Drilling. marching and learning how to load and fire the barrel loading muskets in unison with proficiency.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Well regulated...

 

[Rigby5]

Well, well, well, what do you know? Another liar and another lawyer in trouble with the bar.

There are not any rights in the Bill of Rights, only restrictions on the federal government.

To wit, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, an absolute right which namely shall not be infringed, by federal, state, borough, municipal, county, city, or any other government.

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Uion, unlike the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People who are subject to the police power of their State.

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

I don't get why you keep making "individuals" bold and italic because it destroys your argument?
And individual rights is supreme and can't ever be infringed upon by any legal of government.
There is nothing higher in law than an individual right.
So something that is an individual right like firearms, can not have any federal laws restricting it at all.

 

[Rigby5]

However did you come up with Your right wing fantasy and propaganda from a literal interpretation of our Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment is, literally, part of the Constitution of the United States, and, literally, is what it is, to be interpreted as the letter of the law by people who can actually read.

Golly gee whiz, I didn't "literally" commit a crime, but you and your ilk of left-wing fascists are still going to put me in prison because I might have "figuratively" committed a crime, but not "really" done anything wrong.

The letter of the law of the U.S. Constitution is not "right wing fantasy." Get off the weed and grow up.

Talk to your State legislators.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

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.

The reason we should have no security problems in our free states is because the federal government is supposed to be prohibited from any jurisdiction.

 

[krichton]

Isn't the national guard the state militia? A bunch of random yahoos with guns is neither a "state militia," nor is it "well regulated."

 

[Rigby5]

The obvious meaning of the word "well regulated" is to be familiar and in possession of personal arms.

At the time it meant well trained in how to fight as a unit. Drilling. marching and learning how to load and fire the barrel loading muskets in unison with proficiency.

I agree that "well regulated" likely also implied drilling, marching, and working in unison.
I think we should still all do that.
But that does not at all in any way preclude the fact the founders also meant for the general population to be armed against things like criminals, pirates, as well as other foreign and native threats.
Depending on where you live, bears and snakes are enough reason for a household to be armed.
So no matter how you look at it, federal gun control is just totally wrong and illegal, at all, in any way.
The needs of the general population to be armed is no way diminished by the existence of the National Guard, and in some ways increases the need for an armed population.
The founders did not trust a paid mercenary for, and we should not either.
They always lead to a police state.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Well regulated...

Meaning well armed and familiar, not restricted. Restricted is the opposite of regulated.

 

[Rigby5]

Isn't the national guard the state militia? A bunch of random yahoos with guns is neither a "state militia," nor is it "well regulated."

The National Guard most definitely is not the state militia or any sort of militia.
It is paid and restricted.
The militia is the general population as a whole.
There are 2 main needs for a well armed militia.
One is to be able to respond instantly, like in natural disasters like Katrina.
But the other is to prevent things like the National Guard, which is an untrustworthy, paid, mercenary force, from even existing.
The founders correctly did not trust professional, for pay, mercenary soldiers.
No one ever should trust them.
They are always going to do what those who sign their paychecks order them to do.
And that is VERY dangerous.
If you want proof, then look how police have already been corrupted when they accepted shooting people over Prohibition, the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, 3 strikes, gun control, etc.

And by "regulated" the founders meant familiar, well versed, functional, etc.
As in the federal government was authorized to "regulate interstate commerce".
That did not mean to restrict it but to prevent states from restricting it, and to keep it flowing in a regular fashion.

 

[justinacolmena]

Organized militia can muster at the local armory to get issued their Arms.

Be that as it may, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS -- with or without military conscription -- with or without any formal organization of “The Militia” -- with or without access to official government armories -- is absolute and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[danielpalos]

Well, well, well, what do you know? Another liar and another lawyer in trouble with the bar.

There are not any rights in the Bill of Rights, only restrictions on the federal government.

To wit, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, an absolute right which namely shall not be infringed, by federal, state, borough, municipal, county, city, or any other government.

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Uion, unlike the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People who are subject to the police power of their State.

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

I don't get why you keep making "individuals" bold and italic because it destroys your argument?
And individual rights is supreme and can't ever be infringed upon by any legal of government.
There is nothing higher in law than an individual right.
So something that is an individual right like firearms, can not have any federal laws restricting it at all.

Only well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary not optional to the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

However did you come up with Your right wing fantasy and propaganda from a literal interpretation of our Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment is, literally, part of the Constitution of the United States, and, literally, is what it is, to be interpreted as the letter of the law by people who can actually read.

Golly gee whiz, I didn't "literally" commit a crime, but you and your ilk of left-wing fascists are still going to put me in prison because I might have "figuratively" committed a crime, but not "really" done anything wrong.

The letter of the law of the U.S. Constitution is not "right wing fantasy." Get off the weed and grow up.

Talk to your State legislators.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

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.

The reason we should have no security problems in our free states is because the federal government is supposed to be prohibited from any jurisdiction.

The unorganized militia has already proved itself to be worthless to the security of our free States.

 

[justinacolmena]

But the other is to prevent things like the National Guard, which is an untrustworthy, paid, mercenary force, from even existing.

Certainly not as it is, under the command of the same princes, mayors, and governors who already have armed police forces at their beck and call to punish us and oppress us with city hall gun control and population control policies.

 

[danielpalos]

Organized militia can muster at the local armory to get issued their Arms.

Be that as it may, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS -- with or without military conscription -- with or without any formal organization of “The Militia” -- with or without access to official government armories -- is absolute and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws meant specifically for them as individuals unconnected with the organized militia.

 

[justinacolmena]

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws meant specifically for them as individuals unconnected with the organized militia.

You are infinging on a fundamental constitutional right of the people -- which shall not be infringed -- with all your marijuana-addled nonsense in a court of law.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws meant specifically for them as individuals unconnected with the organized militia.

You are infinging on a fundamental constitutional right of the people -- which shall not be infringed -- with all your marijuana-addled nonsense in a court of law.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Only well regulated militia of the whole People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. It says so in our Second Amendment.

 

[BlindBoo]

The obvious meaning of the word "well regulated" is to be familiar and in possession of personal arms.

At the time it meant well trained in how to fight as a unit. Drilling. marching and learning how to load and fire the barrel loading muskets in unison with proficiency.

I agree that "well regulated" likely also implied drilling, marching, and working in unison.
I think we should still all do that.
But that does not at all in any way preclude the fact the founders also meant for the general population to be armed against things like criminals, pirates, as well as other foreign and native threats.
Depending on where you live, bears and snakes are enough reason for a household to be armed.
So no matter how you look at it, federal gun control is just totally wrong and illegal, at all, in any way.
The needs of the general population to be armed is no way diminished by the existence of the National Guard, and in some ways increases the need for an armed population.
The founders did not trust a paid mercenary for, and we should not either.
They always lead to a police state.

It was a term commonly used by the British military. Colonial Militias were all the rage at protecting colonies even before we broke from England.

The general population, well all male citizen property owners, were require to be in the militia, many of the states required them to purchase their own muskets too.

 

[BlindBoo]

Isn't the national guard the state militia? A bunch of random yahoos with guns is neither a "state militia," nor is it "well regulated."

Mostly. Some states recognize several. Nothing wrong with joining a gun club if you want to learn how to safely and responsibly use firearms, or a knitting club.....whatever floats your boat!