The Role of Government in Maintaining a Well Regulated Militia!?!

[progressive hunter]

And yet you cannot quote or cite any legal support to prove me wrong.



And yet SCOTUS way back in1886 held that a state law that, "forbid(s) bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law" does not violate any right retained by the citizen:

• "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."

The Court revisited those principles in DC v Heller in 2008:

• "Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886) , held that the right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law.” Id., at 264–265. This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment; no one supporting that interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups."

Well, except goofballs like the idiot in your video and I guess you . . .



But I know what the Court has said and I had hoped that you would have some intellectual curiosity and go looking on your own. I cited the cases, you could have learned where you were wrong on your own, but you are apparently one of those guys who are a stubborn puppy and needs your nose rubbed in your mess.



That's funny, I'm the one here solidly standing on the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions enforcing the Constitution. You have been reduced to arguing Oath Keeper conspiracy theories.

.

when did this become about me,,

youre the one that shot his mouth off and cant back it up,,

 

[Abatis]

​

And yet the militia is part of US Code.​

​

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes​

(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

www.law.cornell.edu

None of that is referencing anything pertaining to framing era law.

That is a statute that was enacted in 1956 and is based on the National defense Act of 1916 which completely extinguished any vestige of the clause 15 & 16 (drawn from the citizenry) militia and absorbed all militia operations into the clause 12 national armed forces, becoming the National Guard. That statute is written under Title 10 where all the Art I, §8, clause 12 national armed forces law is written (never cl's 15 & 16 militia).

You do note that the statute declares those citizens who are "militia" but are NOT part of the National Guard or the Naval Militia are defined in law as "unorganized" . . . Do you interpret that directive as the law allowing those private citizens to become "organized" as militia?

 

[progressive hunter]

None of that is referencing anything pertaining to framing era law.

That is a statute that was enacted in 1956 and is based on the National defense Act of 1916 which completely extinguished any vestige of the clause 15 & 16 (drawn from the citizenry) militia and absorbed all militia operations into the clause 12 national armed forces, becoming the National Guard. That statute is written under Title 10 where all the Art I, §8, clause 12 national armed forces law is written (never cl's 15 & 16 militia).

You do note that the statute declares those citizens who are "militia" but are NOT part of the National Guard or the Naval Militia are defined in law as "unorganized" . . . Do you interpret that directive as the law allowing those private citizens to become "organized" as militia?

you do know that laws and acts cant and dont change the constitution???

 

[Abatis]

when did this become about me,,

When you begin a post with, "youre so cute and stupid all at ponce" you ask for an assessment of your intellect, character and veracity (and you fail on all three).

youre the one that shot his mouth off and cant back it up,,

Can't back what up? I've proven the law and SCOTUS decisions destroy that goofball's statements.

 

[multivita-man]

Dissents . . . multiple, two opinions that each are mutually referential, Breyer's dissent like I said, is the most emphatic in rejecting your "collective right" BS and it cites Scalia's majority opinion and the dissents as all standing on the singular point of the Court's precedents endorsing the "individual right".

Breyer does violate precedent by agreeing with Stevens that, "the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. . . . " How can a right that SCOTUS has repeatedly held is pre-existing and not granted by the 2ndA, be interpreted by Breyer (and Stevens) to be conditioned and qualified by the 2ndA?

The Court has been boringly consistent for going on 150 years, that because the RKBA is not granted by the 2ndA, the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. How can Breyer claim the right recognized and secured by the 2ndA is a limited version of what the people possessed and exercised before the 2ndA was ratified?

Is it Breyer's opinion that the framers of the 2ndA 'gave back' to the people a limited, qualified, conditioned "right" that the people never parted with? Where is that theory represented in Court doctrine or holdings?

Breyer and Stevens both argue legal and logical absurdities that expressly violate SCOTUS precedent:

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of self-defense in public from the KKK by ex-slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."​

​

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "​

​

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . .”​

Breyer and Stevens were correct. They understood the history of 2nd Amendment rights better than the majority. They actually used historical research and references, whereas Scalia et al. made up their own rationale.

What I think Stevens would have said (may have said - can't remember) is that some gun ownership protections exist under the 9th Amendment, which is what I believe as well.

 

[progressive hunter]

When you begin a post with, "youre so cute and stupid all at ponce" you ask for an assessment of your intellect, character and veracity (and you fail on all three).



Can't back what up? I've proven the law and SCOTUS decisions destroy that goofball's statements.

laws and scotus cant change the constitution,,

 

[Abatis]

you do know that laws and acts cant and dont change the constitution???

Don't you believe in the foundational principle of conferred powers and retained rights?

The ability of the people to organize themselves as militia was surrendered by the people in Article I, §8, clause 16 when supreme and preemptive power was granted to Congress, "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, . . . " The doctrine of federal preemption for militia powers was established by SCOTUS in Houston v. Moore, (1820) and sustained in others and yes, no matter how you feel, that Supreme Court decision is what the Constitution says on the matter., without any regard for your goofy beliefs

How many constitutional principles are you willing to violate and destroy just to maintain this stupid defense of that idiot?

 

[progressive hunter]

Don't you believe in the foundational principle of conferred powers and retained rights?

The ability of the people to organize themselves as militia was surrendered by the people in Article I, §8, clause 16 when supreme and preemptive power was granted to Congress, "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, . . . " The doctrine of federal preemption for militia powers was established by SCOTUS in Houston v. Moore, (1820) and sustained in others and yes, no matter how you feel, that Supreme Court decision is what the Constitution says on the matter., without any regard for your goofy beliefs

How many constitutional principles are you willing to violate and destroy just to maintain this stupid defense of that idiot?

we get it,, you hate the constitution and the 2nd A because it allows the people a defense against a tyrannical government,,

 

[Abatis]

we get it,, you hate the constitution and the 2nd A because it allows the people a defense against a tyrannical government,,

No, actually I support that (look at my posting history).

I just want pro-gun arguments to be bulletproof and absolutely correct on the Constitution.

You are a failure in that regard and are a danger to gun rights.

Whatever "defense against a tyrannical government" that may occur, must happen after "We the People" rescind our consent to be governed and reclaim the powers originally conferred.

Only then can the government that has acted in a tyrannical manner (violating the principles of its establishment) be declared illegitimate and lose the ability to claim the protections of the Constitution (such as the Constitution's federal supremacy and preemptive powers doctrine). Until that happens, the law has your ass in a sling if you think you can organize yourself as militia . . .

The level of your ignorance is only challenged by your dedication in proving how wrong you can be, spewing crap you think you know (and now, denying SCOTUS has the power to declare what the Constitution says) . . .

You really offer me no intellectual challenge, everything you say is so absurd, I feel like I'm trying to tell a child no cookie before dinner . . .

.

.

 

[progressive hunter]

No, actually I support that (look at my posting history).

I just want pro-gun arguments to be bulletproof and absolutely correct on the Constitution.

You are a failure in that regard and are a danger to gun rights.

Whatever "defense against a tyrannical government" that may occur, must happen after "We the People" rescind our consent to be governed and reclaim the powers originally conferred.

Only then can the government that has acted in a tyrannical manner (violating the principles of its establishment) be declared illegitimate and lose the ability to claim the protections of the Constitution (such as the Constitution's federal supremacy and preemptive powers doctrine).

The level of your ignorance is only challenged by your dedication in proving how wrong you can be, spewing crap you think you know (and now, denying SCOTUS has the power to declare what the Constitution says) . . .

You really offer me no intellectual challenge, everything you say is so absurd, I feel like I'm trying to tell a child no cookie before dinner . . .

.

.

you forgot your link to support that claim,,,

 

[Abatis]

you forgot your link to support that claim,,,

Why do you ask for something you are not willing to provide?

What possible constitutional / legal quote & citation can you provide to support your position?

 

[progressive hunter]

Why do you ask for something you are not willing to provide?

What possible constitutional / legal quote & citation can you provide to support your position?

other than the only way to change the constitution is with a constitutional amendment I never made a claim that requires a link,,,

that one doesnt require a link since its common knowledge,,

 

[Abatis]

We trained on BLM lands liaised with Sheriffs on Search & Rescues In 4 Counties , marched in Redding Rodeo parade 2 years in a row ( 65 marchers and mounted Color Guard , and served Thanksgiving dinners at the mission 3 years in a row all in uniform ) and we are in California , there are Militia all over the country training and forming up Legally

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 11460(a):

"Any two or more persons who assemble as a paramilitary organization for the purpose of practicing with weapons shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. . . .​

​

As used in this subdivision, “paramilitary organization” means an organization which is not an agency of the United States government or of the State of California, . . . "​

 

[progressive hunter]

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 11460(a):

"Any two or more persons who assemble as a paramilitary organization for the purpose of practicing with weapons shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. . . .​

​

As used in this subdivision, “paramilitary organization” means an organization which is not an agency of the United States government or of the State of California, . . . "​

that violates the 1st and 2nd amendments,,

 

[2aguy]

Breyer and Stevens were correct. They understood the history of 2nd Amendment rights better than the majority. They actually used historical research and references, whereas Scalia et al. made up their own rationale.

What I think Stevens would have said (may have said - can't remember) is that some gun ownership protections exist under the 9th Amendment, which is what I believe as well.

Not even close. They dont want people to own guns and crafted their decision to support their feelings.

 

[multivita-man]

Not even close. They dont want people to own guns and crafted their decision to support their feelings.

Disagree. One of the things Stevens pointed out was that at no time in the Court's history had they ever made it a point to treat 2nd amendment right to keep/her arms as an individual right. It was never treated as such. I think the right to keep some guns exists under the 9th, but not the 2nd.

Cruikshank and Presser are admittedly not great examples b/c of those held an outdated (and frankly wrong) view of dual federalism, which was updated by cases in the 20th Century, evolving into what became the "incorporation doctrine," and I think that's the part that Scalia actually did get right in some of their cases (Heller & MacDonald v Chicago).

But Stevens basically got it right. The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in the context of militia service and that's how it's been understood for most of the country's history, irrespective of the incorporation doctrine.

 

[progressive hunter]

Disagree. One of the things Stevens pointed out was that at no time in the Court's history had they ever made it a point to treat 2nd amendment right to keep/her arms as an individual right. It was never treated as such. I think the right to keep some guns exists under the 9th, but not the 2nd.

Cruikshank and Presser are admittedly not great examples b/c of those held an outdated (and frankly wrong) view of dual federalism, which was updated by cases in the 20th Century, evolving into what became the "incorporation doctrine," and I think that's the part that Scalia actually did get right in some of their cases (Heller & MacDonald v Chicago).

But Stevens basically got it right. The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in the context of militia service and that's how it's been understood for most of the country's history, irrespective of the incorporation doctrine.

funny since the 2nd A and the people that wrote it says different,,,

 

[multivita-man]

funny since the 2nd A and the people that wrote it says different,,,

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

Now compare that to the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st Amendment is a stronger restriction. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion or abridging free speech or a free press and so on.

The 2nd Amendment first of all contextualizes the "right" of the "people" to keep and bear Arms, connecting it to the establishment and maintenance of a militia necessary to the security of a free state. And rather than stating that Congress shall make no laws restricting or abridging this right, it simply says that the right shall not be "infringed", which is subjective, not absolute.

These are clearly not rights to the same degree.

 

[Failzero]

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 11460(a):

"Any two or more persons who assemble as a paramilitary organization for the purpose of practicing with weapons shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. . . .​

​

As used in this subdivision, “paramilitary organization” means an organization which is not an agency of the United States government or of the State of California, . . . "​

Not one incident with law enforcement in 5 years of FTX training events with hundreds of participants ( lasting 2-3 days ) 30 + volunteers in uniform working with BLM & 4 Sheriffs on missing persons searches in 4 counties

 

[progressive hunter]

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

Now compare that to the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st Amendment is a stronger restriction. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion or abridging free speech or a free press and so on.

The 2nd Amendment first of all contextualizes the "right" of the "people" to keep and bear Arms, connecting it to the establishment and maintenance of a militia necessary to the security of a free state. And rather than stating that Congress shall make no laws restricting or abridging this right, it simply says that the right shall not be "infringed", which is subjective, not absolute.

the two have nothing to do with each other,,

every restriction on the 1st A are when they cross over to someone elses right,,

just like you cant shoot another person for no reason,,,