The assault weapon ban? Not about mass shooters, it’s about Rittenhouse and McCloskys…..

[Darkwind]

So, Darkwind, you're like the left; you don't want to learn because ignorance allows you to keep with the arguments you know. Learning more takes work. I understand.

Unfortunately, if gun owners don't want to learn, we're going to lose our rights, but you just make yourself comfortable. That's more important than liberty.

What I am is unwilling to be turned from the truth by someone who wishes to redefine specific clauses in the Constitution for political purposes.

The Second Amendment is clear and on point.

The right to keep and bare arms is an individual right and bars governments from infringing upon it.

 

[Abatis]

YES, it is.
When the states militia is called up for federal duty, they are under federal authority, along with the commander of the states commander.

I am talking about the condition of being enrolled but not activated. That could be a condition 27 years long, if one enrolled at 18 and aged out of militia service at 45 and never called into service. That enrolled militia member's arms keeping and bearing was under militia law for every moment of that time whether called into service or not.

Isn't that the core of your theory, that citizen's possession and use of a gun was conditioned upon and qualified by his attachment with the militia, there was no personal discretion, no personal "right" to keep and bear a gun?

I do agree that when a specific company of activated state militia is called into federal service, everything changes, to the point that if he commits a crime, he is under the UCMJ not civil law and loses the 5th Amendment's grand jury protections.

Discerning if and when that specific moment in time occurs, when a militia member actually came into federal service, is an important point of law in the majority of Supreme Court decisions deciding disputes and conflicts between the feds and the states over militia control (I'll note, never once referring to the 2ndA for any guidance).

By all means, examine the Supreme Court's militia cases and try to find the instances where the 2ndA guided their reasoning or decisions. Here are the cases:

Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820),
Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827),
Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1917),
Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)

So, the enrolled citizen MUST have a firearm, ammo and accessories, show up for drills but NOT actually be called up for service?

No more than a kid who turned 18 y.o. yesterday who obeys the law and signs up for Selective Service today, has been drafted.

That list of enrolled citizens was often called the "alarm list", it meant little more than when the call went out, these were the citizens obligated to show up (with the arms, ammo and accoutrements as mandated in law).

You still have not explained how any aspect of all this obedience of militia law, can be considered an exercise of a "right".

Where were these drills held at and who did the member report to?

There was being "called out to exercise" and called into service. As for location, the town square or a pasture I would imagine, large enough to accommodate the military exercises necessary.

The Militia Act notes this activity:

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, . . . 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."​

​

You still have not explained how any aspect of obeying militia law, can be considered an exercise of a "right".

As you and others ignore "A well- regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

If by "others" you mean Congress and SCOTUS and everyone except 20th Century collectivist anti-gun activists, yeah, the declaratory clause of the 2ndA has never been examined to inform, or held to direct, any aspect of militia organization, training, deployment or any control by any entity in authority, federal or state.

Your theory is a bunch of bullshit.

Means if you aren't in an active-duty situation, people are subject to local and state/colony laws.

So the federal law you say is the sole source of direction for the arms keeping and bearing of all citizens (obligating some, excluding from all keeping and bearing for others) is mooted when the militia are not in service, and then the states decide who the proper arms keepers and bearers are? What exactly is the legal process by which the federal militia law is rendered null?

Never stated that, people didn't have take out.
Most, if not all, had to supply their own food.
Including people in the militia.

You said, "When not active, they follow the same laws as anyone else."

What are these other laws? The only laws we are discussing are the federal militia laws that your theory says direct the arms keeping and bearing of ALL citizens and limits arms keeping and bearing to militia service and the 2ndA backs that up . . .

A citizen is either in or out, either enrolled and mandated to provide themselves with a gun and can only use it when called, or a citizen is out with absolutely no opportunity to keep and bear arms for any purpose.

You say militia law is the full exposition of what a citizen can do with a gun, so please tell me what OTHER laws (and written by who) are citizens to "follow" that allows any other keeping and bearing of arms?

Yes, WHEN the person is on active duty, otherwise, local or state/colony laws applied.

Your entire theory demands federal law enjoy field preemption. Federal militia law directs all militia organization and control allowing states to undertake the training of the militia (regimen mandated by congress) and naming of officers.

There is no state militia law that takes over, the entire structure is established under Art I, §8 of the Constitution (and only §8).

Yes, hence: 'Well regulated".

Well, again, that just can't be . . . The declaratory clause of the 2ndA has never been examined to inform, or held to direct, any aspect of militia organization, training, deployment or any control by any entity, federal or state.

Actually, "well regulated" is just a compliment, an accolade earned by a particular company of militia after demonstrating their character as a fighting unit and expertness in military execution. In general terms, one should read "well regulated militia" to say, the militia is properly functioning and in operational order and condition.

That use would put the term "well regulated" in opposition to its actual antonym, "ill-regulated" which has chugged-on for centuries, unmolested by political redefining and misconstruction. "Ill-regulated" simply describes a fighting corps in substandard condition incapable or unprepared to function as a battle-ready, cohesive unit.

Never stated that.

That you do not comprehend the outcomes your theory forces, is not surprising.

Never stated that either, when not active duty, they were subject to local laws.

There were no "local (or state) laws"; there was only the federal Militia Act of 1792-95 and all entities, federal, state and local, (and the citizens deemed obligated by law to serve), are controlled by it.

Well, until the Militia Act of 1903 which rescinded the Militia Act of 1972-95 and eliminated the militia duty impressment on citizens and absorbed the clause 15 & 16 state militias into the clause 12 federal army.

What part of under local authority don't you understand?

The part where there is any . . .

 

[woodwork201]

WTF? "188 While the proposed United States Constitution was debated"?
So the US government wasn't even established.

Pennsylvania's militia was under control of the state.
Hmmmmm...........sounds almost like a state regulation.

But the Pennsylvania militia was established. Pennsylvania was a state before the Constitution was ratified. Do you not even know that the States already existed? The Constitution didn't change anything in the States. The militias had state owned arms in their homes.

And, yes, of course the militia was under the control of the state. Who ever claimed otherwise? That wasn't firearm regulation; that was "well regulated militia". Geeze, how stupid can one guy be?

 

[woodwork201]

Actually no. The unorganized militia cannot be federalized. Without the approval of the state governor.

Where does it say that?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where does it say that?

Because the unorganized militia is not part of the national guard.

 

[woodwork201]

If you are going to make up an argument out of whole cloth, at least be pithy about it.

No one with any understanding of the language, then or today, can read the Second as a government requirement to form or stand up a militia of any kind.

The prefatory clause, as is agreed to by most legal scholars and linguists, is an explanation for the purpose of why government SHALL not infringe up the right of the people.

In every instance where the Bill of Rights speaks, the Amendments are either a restriction on government or an unassailable right OF THE PEOPLE.

Trying to bring into the discussion what other state constitution say is to bring nothing but a word salad that drives the discussion off topic. We are talking about the language in the United States Constitution.

So reading isn't something you're good at, is it? I didn't mention a single state constitution; I mentioned what the states demanded as a condition of ratifying the United States Constitution and what they demanded be included in a bill of rights.

If you were capable of reading with an open mind, which clearly you are not, you would understand that the states explicitly named the militia clause as a completely separate requirement on the government. In fact, they specified the right to keep and bear arms first and the militia clause second.

That they ratified the amendments in what would become The Bill of Rights, proves that they believed that Madison's edits, edits only designed to bring the 4 variations into a common statement, did not change the meaning or intent. Had it done that, changed the meaning or intent, as understood by the entire Congress and the Legislatures of the 13 States, they would not have ratified the amendments that became the Bill of Rights.

Do you honestly believe that 4 states explicitly demanded in the very document in which they communicated their ratification of the Constitution of the United States, that there be a clause stating that the militia is critical to the defense of a free state, but then would let it be turned into nothing more than a reason for the right to keep and bear arms? Well of course you do because you have a close mind, not capable of thinking for yourself, but can only parrot the words others wrote for you.

So, you're right. What counts is in the Constitution, but to understand the Constitution you can't read it as though it was written in 2022. You have to read it as if it was written in 1789. I showed you exactly how to do that but you chose not to read the entire post and not to actually learn anything new.

 

[woodwork201]

Because the unorganized militia is not part of the national guard.

Where in the Constitution does it mention the National Guard?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where in the Constitution does it mention the National Guard?

Where does it mention the unorganized militia?
Dumbass the militia was renamed national guard. The unorganized militia has no connection with the national guard. As a matter of fact you posted the miltila make-up not to long ago stop being a leftist.

 

[woodwork201]

Where does it mention the unorganized militia?
Dumbass the militia was renamed national guard. The unorganized militia has no connection with the national guard. As a matter of fact you posted the miltila make-up not to long ago stop being a leftist.

You fell for that lie, hook, line, and sinker. The militia was not renamed to the National Guard unless you think the Constitution allows sending the militia to Afghanistan.

Please quote where in the Constitution it says that the militia can be used in any overseas or international war?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You fell for that lie, hook, line, and sinker. The militia was not renamed to the National Guard unless you think the Constitution allows sending the militia to Afghanistan.

Please quote where in the Constitution it says that the militia can be used in any overseas or international war?

The national guard you dumbfuck became to be in 1903 militia act. It was the the unorganized militia was created. The reason for the unorganized militia was to have abled body persons ready who have no connection with the regular military or national guard.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

I am talking about the condition of being enrolled but not activated. That could be a condition 27 years long, if one enrolled at 18 and aged out of militia service at 45 and never called into service. That enrolled militia member's arms keeping and bearing was under militia law for every moment of that time whether called into service or not.

You're FOS, when NOT by the state/colony/ federally activated the militia member would have to follow all local/colony/state laws.

Isn't that the core of your theory, that citizen's possession and use of a gun was conditioned upon and qualified by his attachment with the militia,

NO.

there was no personal discretion, no personal "right" to keep and bear a gun?

NO.
If local laws permitted possession of a gun, they could, if the rules stated they couldn't, they couldn't.

I do agree that when a specific company of activated state militia is called into federal service, everything changes, to the point that if he commits a crime, he is under the UCMJ not civil law and loses the 5th Amendment's grand jury protections.

Discerning if and when that specific moment in time occurs, when a militia member actually came into federal service, is an important point of law in the majority of Supreme Court decisions deciding disputes and conflicts between the feds and the states over militia control (I'll note, never once referring to the 2ndA for any guidance).

By all means, examine the Supreme Court's militia cases and try to find the instances where the 2ndA guided their reasoning or decisions. Here are the cases:

Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820),

Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827),
Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1917),
Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.
It's the FIRST part of the 2nd amendment.

You keep ignoring that.

No more than a kid who turned 18 y.o. yesterday who obeys the law and signs up for Selective Service today, has been drafted.

WTF?
No, signing up for the selective service doesn't mean you're drafted, you could be.
Just like signing up for the state's militia, you aren't drafted but you could be.

That list of enrolled citizens was often called the "alarm list", it meant little more than when the call went out, these were the citizens obligated to show up (with the arms, ammo and accoutrements as mandated in law).

You still have not explained how any aspect of all this obedience of militia law, can be considered an exercise of a "right".

I have, you just ignore the answer, just like the FIRST part of the 2nd amendment.
During active duty, a militia member can carry their weapon(s) anywhere, when under the command of the federal government.
That is their right.

There was being "called out to exercise" and called into service.

Just like today's NG.

As for location, the town square or a pasture I would imagine, large enough to accommodate the military exercises necessary.

The Militia Act notes this activity:

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, . . . 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."​

​

You still have not explained how any aspect of obeying militia law, can be considered an exercise of a "right".



If by "others" you mean Congress and SCOTUS and everyone except 20th Century collectivist anti-gun activists, yeah, the declaratory clause of the 2ndA has never been examined to inform, or held to direct, any aspect of militia organization, training, deployment or any control by any entity in authority, federal or state.

Your theory is a bunch of bullshit.

You're FOS.
When you keep ignoring the FIRST part of the 2nd amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

So the federal law you say is the sole source of direction for the arms keeping and bearing of all citizens (obligating some, excluding from all keeping and bearing for others) is mooted when the militia are not in service, and then the states decide who the proper arms keepers and bearers are?

Yes.

What exactly is the legal process by which the federal militia law is rendered null?

There isn't.

You said, "When not active, they follow the same laws as anyone else."

What are these other laws?

WTF?
You can't comprehend?
State, local/colony laws.

Just like any military member now,

The only laws we are discussing are the federal militia laws

NO, WE aren't, the militia is a STATE organization.

that your theory says direct the arms keeping and bearing of ALL citizens and limits arms keeping and bearing to militia service and the 2ndA backs that up . . .

You're FOS, never stated that, you THINK that's my theory.
If local laws dictate it, people may or may NOT carry a gun.

A citizen is either in or out, either enrolled and mandated to provide themselves with a gun and can only use it when called, or a citizen is out with absolutely no opportunity to keep and bear arms for any purpose.

WTF?
They didn't have takeout, how do you think most people got their meat?

You say militia law is the full exposition of what a citizen can do with a gun, so please tell me what OTHER laws (and written by who) are citizens to "follow" that allows any other keeping and bearing of arms?



Your entire theory demands federal law enjoy field preemption. Federal militia law directs all militia organization and control allowing states to undertake the training of the militia (regimen mandated by congress) and naming of officers.

There is no state militia law that takes over, the entire structure is established under Art I, §8 of the Constitution (and only §8).



Well, again, that just can't be . . . The declaratory clause of the 2ndA has never been examined to inform, or held to direct, any aspect of militia organization, training, deployment or any control by any entity, federal or state.

It's in the FIRST part of the amendment, YOU keep ignoring.

Actually, "well regulated" is just a compliment, an accolade earned by a particular company of militia after demonstrating their character as a fighting unit and expertness in military execution.

In what dictionary?

reg·u·late
[ˈreɡyəˌlāt]

VERB

1. control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
2. control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

In general terms, one should read "well regulated militia" to say, the militia is properly functioning and in operational order and condition.

Sure, that's what it should say...................But doesn't.

That use would put the term "well regulated" in opposition to its actual antonym, "ill-regulated" which has chugged-on for centuries, unmolested by political redefining and misconstruction. "Ill-regulated" simply describes a fighting corps in substandard condition incapable or unprepared to function as a battle-ready, cohesive unit.



That you do not comprehend the outcomes your theory forces, is not surprising.

WTF?
YOU'RE the one the isn't comprehending or just choose to ignore.

There were no "local (or state) laws"; there was only the federal Militia Act of 1792-95 and all entities, federal, state and local, (and the citizens deemed obligated by law to serve), are controlled by it.

You're FOS.
Militia's first and foremost are/were STATE/colonial entities

Well, until the Militia Act of 1903 which rescinded the Militia Act of 1972-95 and eliminated the militia duty impressment on citizens and absorbed the clause 15 & 16 state militias into the clause 12 federal army.

They could be, when deemed necessary

The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903 or the Dick Act, was legislation enacted by the United States Congress to create an early National Guard and which codified the circumstances under which the Guard could be federalized. It also provided federal funds to pay for equipment and training, including annual summer encampments. The new National Guard was to organize units of similar form and quality to those of the regular Army, and intended to achieve the same training, education, and readiness requirements as active duty units.[2.

The part where there is any . . .

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

But the Pennsylvania militia was established.

NO, it wasn't, they had local militias.

Prior to the end of 1776, there was no militia or minuteman company established in Colonial Pennsylvania. The Provincial government was ruled by the Quakers.

The Pennsylvania Militia was recognized as officially being organized on March 17, 1777 through the first militia act.

On March 17, 1777, the General Assembly passed a state militia law. The militia law decreed the President of the Supreme Executive Council as the Commander-in-Chief of the new militia. The law further provided a local person, called a County Lieutenant, who held the rank of Colonel, put in charge to implement the militia according to the law. A militia was set up for each county, and for the city of Philadelphia.

The Supreme Executive Council received a list of names from the General Assembly and appointed Robert McCallister to be County Lieutenant and several others to be Sub-Lieutenants for York County, to implement the militia law.

Pennsylvania was a state before the Constitution was ratified.

NO SHIT, they, as well as 12 others had to ratify it.
On December 12, 1787, Pennsylvania becomes the second state to ratify the Constitution,

Do you not even know that the States already existed?

WTF?

The Constitution didn't change anything in the States. The militias had state owned arms in their homes.

And, yes, of course the militia was under the control of the state. Who ever claimed otherwise? That wasn't firearm regulation; that was "well regulated militia".

Where did you get that from?
Didn't specifically claim it was.

"Pennsylvania's militia was under control of the state".
"Hmmmmm...........sounds almost like a state regulation".

Mean's they were organized by their commander, under the direction/REGULATION of the state.
They could regulate firearms or not, as well as other rules.

Geeze, how stupid can one guy be?

IDK, you're up there, in the stupidity department, along with others.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Like open heart surgery, first anesthetize the patient.

Trumptards: "NAW, don't need none of that".
"That causes your heart to go bad"

If gun ownership is banned, we're no longer a free state.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

If gun ownership is banned, we're no longer a free state.

Possibly but no one is even suggesting that.
Besides republicans, repeating the same 40year-old lie.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're FOS, when NOT by the state/colony/ federally activated the militia member would have to follow all local/colony/state laws.

NO.

NO.
If local laws permitted possession of a gun, they could, if the rules stated they couldn't, they couldn't.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.
It's the FIRST part of the 2nd amendment.

You keep ignoring that.


WTF?
No, signing up for the selective service doesn't mean you're drafted, you could be.
Just like signing up for the state's militia, you aren't drafted but you could be.

I have, you just ignore the answer, just like the FIRST part of the 2nd amendment.
During active duty, a militia member can carry their weapon(s) anywhere, when under the command of the federal government.
That is their right.

Just like today's NG.

You're FOS.
When you keep ignoring the FIRST part of the 2nd amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.


Yes.

There isn't.

WTF?
You can't comprehend?
State, local/colony laws.

Just like any military member now,

NO, WE aren't, the militia is a STATE organization.

You're FOS, never stated that, you THINK that's my theory.
If local laws dictate it, people may or may NOT carry a gun.

WTF?
They didn't have takeout, how do you think most people got their meat?

It's in the FIRST part of the amendment, YOU keep ignoring.

In what dictionary?

reg·u·late
[ˈreɡyəˌlāt]

VERB

1. control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
2. control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

Sure, that's what it should say...................But doesn't.

WTF?
YOU'RE the one the isn't comprehending or just choose to ignore.

You're FOS.
Militia's first and foremost are/were STATE/colonial entities

They could be, when deemed necessary

The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903 or the Dick Act, was legislation enacted by the United States Congress to create an early National Guard and which codified the circumstances under which the Guard could be federalized. It also provided federal funds to pay for equipment and training, including annual summer encampments. The new National Guard was to organize units of similar form and quality to those of the regular Army, and intended to achieve the same training, education, and readiness requirements as active duty units.[2.

Dumbass that free state includes tyranny of the government. So tell me would the government try to defend itself from it's own tyranny?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Possibly but no one is even suggesting that.
Besides republicans, repeating the same 40year-old lie.

Yeah, an all out ban is the objective. It's ok. You can stop lying about it. We know, now.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeah, an all out ban is the objective. It's ok. You can stop lying about it. We know, now.

Not just ban but confiscation.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Dumbass that free state includes tyranny of the government.

Only Trump's.
The other 45 president's never tried to overthrow the government.

So tell me would the government try to defend itself from it's own tyranny?

The rest of Trump's former regime.........DID.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Only Trump's.
The other 45 president's never tried to overthrow the government.


The rest of Trump's former regime.........DID.

Tyranny of the government doesn't get a pass if you want a free state. So tell me will a tyrannical government defend itself from itself to maintain a free state?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Yeah, an all out ban is the objective. It's ok. You can stop lying about it. We know, now.

No, that's the RWNJ/gun manufacturers/republican objective.
Tell their gullible cult, THEY are going to ban/confiscate guns.............keep repeating it for 40 years.
The morons will go out and purchase something, they're convinced will be banned/confiscated.

It takes a special kind of stupid to do that.
A perfect match for gullible RWNJ's.