The rules of organizing milita

No, Presser is an opinion of the Supreme Court, making it the law of the land, that absent authorization by a state or the Federal government, a ‘militia’ is devoid of the authority to function in any military capacity, including engaging in lawless rebellion against the Federal government subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical,’ and if it seeks to do so, it is nothing more than a criminal organization whose members are in violation of the law.

That you don’t like or agree with the ruling doesn’t change that fact.
The court system is not authorized to make law so the ruling is not "... the law of the land".

"...that absent authorization by a state or the Federal government, a ‘militia’ is devoid of the authority to function in any military capacity",
The Federal government recognizes the "unorganized militia" does it not?
 
Last edited:
The first rule of organizing a militia is not to mention organizing a militia on a public forum because the next thing you know you have the FBI and all other manner of .gov "fellow enthusiasts" wanting to join. ;)
That’s what people misunderstand about Militias. They are law abiding ones and not. There are Patriotic Militias and Militias that want to burn city’s down. I am a 3%er and we encourage being public. We have a public Forum at threepercenters.org and Telegram T.Me/ThreePercenters. If you are apart of the conversation you are the 3%
 
Also wrong.

Presser was indicted for violating article 11 of the Military Code of the state of Illinois.

As state law, the Military Code applies not only to cities and towns but to the entire state, including its most rural and underpopulated jurisdictions.

The Presser Court upheld as Constitutional article 11, applicable to all residents of the state.
The ruling cited the code but did not address it except as it applies to cities and towns of that State. It also states that the court does not know of a reason why the State couldn't forbid such activity. But the opinion itself forbids nothing.
 
"It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit . . . the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States."
Note exceptions​

Please do, precisely . . .

You employ ridiculous definitions of words that have no association to their use in law, you have no clue how the law operates and you prove again and again, you just have no idea what you are talking about.
 
That’s what people misunderstand about Militias. They are law abiding ones and not. There are Patriotic Militias and Militias that want to burn city’s down. I am a 3%er and we encourage being public. We have a public Forum at threepercenters.org and Telegram T.Me/ThreePercenters. If you are apart of the conversation you are the 3%
Hell, the feds are so retarded they likely consider the Knights of Columbus a right-wing extremist group.....You know, they have swords and all. ;)

Politics and the Moron Language | National Review
 
Please do, precisely . . .

You employ ridiculous definitions of words that have no association to their use in law, you have no clue how the law operates and you prove again and again, you just have no idea what you are talking about.
Exceptions noted:
"...unless restrained by their own constitutions,..."
"..except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States.".


Taken directly from Presser as quoted in my posted link. As is this:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.
 
Depends if you understand the Second Amendment or not.

There are two rights in the 2A. The right to keep arms, which is the right to own arms, and the right to bear arms, which is the right to be in the militia.

There is no "right" to be in, or join the militia. Congress' criteria for enrollment was specific and anyone not meeting the criteria of a, "free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" was excluded from enrollment.

The Abolitionist legislature in Massachusetts found that out, they wanted to raise the political situation of Blacks and include Blacks in their state militia rolls but the idea was rejected because of federal militia law. Going the other way, slave sates conditioned their state's right to arms protection on militia enrollment eligibility so laws forbidding arms to Blacks could be sustained.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

One of the reasons the clause was objected to was because the provision was, (as Gerry explained, which you didn't quote), "to prevent the maladministration of government".

The framers were always wary and suspect of any wording that would allow the government to misconstruct the intent to protect rights, into a mechanism to restrict rights.

It was feared that government could declare who are religiously scrupulous or declare all were religiously scrupulous and declare all unsuitable to exercise the right and diminish or hobble the militia.

The proposed clause you are focused on initially passed the House but was stricken in the Senate. The Senate debates were not recorded so we don't know the actual arguments that led to it being stricken before it was sent back to he House.

Consider though, the proposed amendment was not an appropriate vehicle for rules for militia, its only intent was to restrain government power.

How to exercise the Section 8 militia powers to regulate under law the organized militia, was already under discussion and the Militia Act of 1792 as enacted, contains a long list of citizens who are excepted from militia duty.

Interestingly, a word search in the Congressional Documents and Debates turns up no results for "religiously scrupulous" in the Second Congress, so whatever the perceived need for that exclusion in the debates of the proposed bill of rights in the summer of 1789, did not arise in the debates over the proposed Militia Act begun in the Fall of 1791.

A recognition of the exceptions that are codified in state laws exists in the final Militia Act, with no mention of the specifics of those exceptions or mention of any standing or future federal criteria to allow or disallow those state exceptions:

"II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."​

Your example of a rejected proposal, is much ado about nothing and any inference you build on the proposed exception is an over-reading and precisely the kind of misconstruction the Federalists warned us about.


Clearly Mr Gerry saw "Bear arms" and "militia duty" as synonymous words.

Whatever you feel he thought the words of the 2nd recognize, the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the people, not assigned to, belonging to, or confined to the militia.

Members of the militia, in the performance of their service have no need of a "right to keep and bear arms". Everything a citizen does as an enrolled militia member, from how they acquire a gun and what type it is to when and how to carry it, was directed by law.

And are you really arguing Gerry's or Jackson's statements (or any Rep's you chop quote) were the sentiments of the whole House at the time? Should either AOC's or MTG's 2020 statements be represented as the opinion of the whole House in 2220?

And Mr Jackson saw "bear arms" "militia duty" and "render military service" as synonymous.

Jackson's objection was that those claiming the exemption could evade service, whether or not they were actually Quakers and people who did serve would need to defend them . . . So either by decree or personal choice, those citizens who were considered "religiously scrupulous" could be eliminated from the citizens recognized as possessing the right to bear arms, thus evade liability / obligation to serve in the militia if it was called-up and the overall effectiveness of the militia would be diminished. It was not uncommon in the laws of states that those claiming an exception from duty, paid someone to serve in their stead; that's all Jackson was proposing.

In the final account, the exercise of the right to arms is subject only to the individual's free will. One can neither be compelled to exercise the right or be required to justify their need to exercise a right. The entire premise of the "religiously scrupulous" exemption runs counter to the concept of a right which is why it was rejected. The entire idea is absurd and your machinations and inventions against the RKBA from the "religiously scrupulous" exemption shows the wisdom of the framers in rejecting it.


In fact there's nothing about self defense, nothing about walking around with guns.

Why would there be?

Because the powers of government were expressly stated in the body of the Constitution and "in fact there's nothing about self defense, nothing about walking around with guns" being restrained in the powers granted, no power exists for the federal government to even compose a thought on those actions.

The 2ndA isn't a permission slip for the citizen, a list the citizen refers to to find out what he's allowed to do . . .

"In fact" the 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything; it's merely a redundant declaration that the government is forbidden to exercise powers it was never granted.
 
Last edited:
There is no "right" to be in, or join the militia. Congress' criteria for enrollment was specific and anyone not meeting the criteria of a, "free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" was excluded from enrollment.

The Abolitionist legislature in Massachusetts found that out, they wanted to raise the political situation of Blacks and include Blacks in their state militia rolls but the idea was rejected because of federal militia law. Going the other way, slave sates conditioned their state's right to arms protection on militia enrollment eligibility so laws forbidding arms to Blacks could be sustained.



One of the reasons the clause was objected to was because the provision was, (as Gerry explained, which you didn't quote), "to prevent the maladministration of government".

The framers were always wary and suspect of any wording that would allow the government to misconstruct the intent to protect rights, into a mechanism to restrict rights.

It was feared that government could declare who are religiously scrupulous or declare all were religiously scrupulous and declare all unsuitable to exercise the right and diminish or hobble the militia.

The proposed clause you are focused on initially passed the House but was stricken in the Senate. The Senate debates were not recorded so we don't know the actual arguments that led to it being stricken before it was sent back to he House.

Consider though, the proposed amendment was not an appropriate vehicle for rules for militia, its only intent was to restrain government power.

How to exercise the Section 8 militia powers to regulate under law the organized militia, was already under discussion and the Militia Act of 1792 as enacted, contains a long list of citizens who are excepted from militia duty.

Interestingly, a word search in the Congressional Documents and Debates turns up no results for "religiously scrupulous" in the Second Congress, so whatever the perceived need for that exclusion in the debates of the proposed bill of rights in the summer of 1789, did not arise in the debates over the proposed Militia Act begun in the Fall of 1791.

A recognition of the exceptions that are codified in state laws exists in the final Militia Act, with no mention of the specifics of those exceptions or mention of any standing or future federal criteria to allow or disallow those state exceptions:

"II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."​

Your example of a rejected proposal, is much ado about nothing and any inference you build on the proposed exception is an over-reading and precisely the kind of misconstruction the Federalists warned us about.




Whatever you feel he thought the words of the 2nd recognize, the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the people, not assigned to, belonging to, or confined to the militia.

Members of the militia, in the performance of their service have no need of a "right to keep and bear arms". Everything a citizen does as an enrolled militia member, from how they acquire a gun and what type it is to when and how to carry it, was directed by law.

And are you really arguing Gerry's or Jackson's statements (or any Rep's you chop quote) were the sentiments of the whole House at the time? Should either AOC's or MTG's 2020 statements be represented as the opinion of the whole House in 2220?



Jackson's objection was that those claiming the exemption could evade service, whether or not they were actually Quakers and people who did serve would need to defend them . . . So either by decree or personal choice, those citizens who were considered "religiously scrupulous" could be eliminated from the citizens recognized as possessing the right to bear arms, thus evade liability / obligation to serve in the militia if it was called-up and the overall effectiveness of the militia would be diminished. It was not uncommon in the laws of states that those claiming an exception from duty, paid someone to serve in their stead; that's all Jackson was proposing.

In the final account, the exercise of the right to arms is subject only to the individual's free will. One can neither be compelled to exercise the right or be required to justify their need to exercise a right. The entire premise of the "religiously scrupulous" exemption runs counter to the concept of a right which is why it was rejected. The entire idea is absurd and your machinations and inventions against the RKBA from the "religiously scrupulous" exemption shows the wisdom of the framers in rejecting it.




Why would there be?

Because the powers of government were expressly stated in the body of the Constitution and "in fact there's nothing about self defense, nothing about walking around with guns" being restrained in the powers granted, no power exists for the federal government to even compose a thought on those actions.

The 2ndA isn't a permission slip for the citizen, a list the citizen refers to to find out what he's allowed to do . . .

"In fact" the 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything; it's merely a redundant declaration that the government is forbidden to exercise powers it was never granted.

There totally is a right to be in the militia.

I've explained it. You want to ignore the Founding Fathers....

The problem what you're looking at is the militia acts.

Militia acts were laws created by Congress. The right to be in the militia is from the Bill of Rights, which is Constitutional law, rather than congressional law.

Congress could say who is in the militia automatically. They put all males (more or less) from 18-45 automatically in the militia. They didn't need to do this, but they did it anyway.

The Dick Act put all males 17-45 automatically in the militia.

This doesn't mean Congress couldn't make a law that says no one can be in the militia.

This is where the Second Amendment comes in.

"Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. "

Exactly what Mr Gerry said. They were worried the feds could destroy the militia.

So, how do you protect the militia?

Yes, the clause was not included because they felt that the government could declare someone religiously scrupulous and prevent them from being in the militia.

So your argument is that there's no right to be in the militia, simply that Congress can make a law defining who is, and who isn't, in the militia. And that this would protect the people from bad government.

My argument is that there is a right to be in the militia. That Congress can temporarily make laws defining who is and who isn't in the militia AUTOMATICALLY, but that individuals can be in the militia if they so choose even if they're not included.

This was to stop the government declaring people unable to be in the militia and thereby destroying the militia. As Mr Gerry said.

"Whatever you feel he thought the words of the 2nd recognize, the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the people, not assigned to, belonging to, or confined to the militia."

Huh? I didn't say the right was "confined to the militia".

A person doesn't need to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia. That makes no sense in the first place. Imagine you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in it. Then they just stop you being in the militia and therefore you have no right, and then the militia is dead.

You're having an argument with what you think I ought to be saying, not with what I am saying.

Jackson was NOT talking about people evading service. They were talking about people who were religiously scrupulous of using arms. He wanted people to pay an equivalent if they didn't partake in militia duty because those who did do militia duty were putting something into their community, however he called this "render military service".

Now, in the different versions of the Second Amendment as they passed through Congress show that "render military service" and "bear arms" are synonymous:

"June 8th 1789
but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 17th 1789
but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

August 24th 1789
but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 25th 1789
but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
"

September 4th 1789 it was gone.

Why change "render military service" to "bear arms" and back again? Why talk using these two terms interchangeably in Congress?

Yeah, why would there be anything about self defense and lots about protecting the militia when it was all about protecting the militia?
 
There is a fascinating Master’s degree dissertation I came upon recently discussing the 2d Amendment. It seems to argue that the 2d Amendmemt was not about an individual’s right to have arms. Instead it contends that the Amendment was concerned more with protecting the right of the People and the states to have their own militia. And militias were presumed to be all eligible citizens of a state (which in that day and age wasn’t as broad as it might be today). It was designed to prevent the concentration of central (national) government power.

It had in mind the then very much inter-related notions of disallowing the quartering of troops in civilian homes and the general opposition to standing armies.

I’m not doing it justice, here. It’s long. It’s scholarly. I don’t agree with all of it. But then, that’s not crucial. It is more than many of our leftist pals offer in support of their positions.

The dissertation is called “THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: WHAT THE DEBATES AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND THE FIRST CONGRESS SAY ABOUT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
By
JEFFREY P. CAMPBELL Bachelor of Arts in History Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 2009”

Here is the link:

 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top