The rules of organizing milita

[Flash]

Private armies are not American.

Militias are not private armies.

Here is a great example of a militia being formed and opposing government tyranny.

 

[Papageorgio]

I do not know what the law says, but I am against a woman being a military man, this is ridiculous and harms the patriarchal traditions of our peoples.

Can they hold jobs? Drive? Vote? Is barefoot and pregnant they way it’s supposed to be?

 

[rupol2000]

Women get left at home, when the men go off to fight. That woman should have a gun to protect herself and her children.

ANYONE OR ANY LAW, that says otherwise, is morally and ethically wrong.

I know that they were allowed to serve in the army in 2016, but this is the federal army

Does the US have a law that allows women to own weapons and participate in militias?

 

[Correll]

I know that they were allowed to serve in the army in 2016, but this is the federal army

Does the US have a law that allows women to own weapons and participate in militias?

I don't care. YOu try to take my wife's gun away, so that she cannot defend herself or our child while I am away, and we got us a problem.

 

[rupol2000]

I don't care. YOu try to take my wife's gun away, so that she cannot defend herself or our child while I am away, and we got us a problem.

Has your wife acquired a weapon legally?

 

[Opie]

Militia simply means armed civilians who band together for a common goal. No rules of formation.

This right here. The 3%ers, check them out. And you will get the idea

 

[rupol2000]

defend herself or our child

This is the man's task. It has always been this way and it worked. According to your logic, we should distribute rifled weapons to children. That's bullshit. These problems are generated not by the fact that a woman does not have a weapon, but by the fact that the leftish scum has spawned criminality.

 

[Correll]

Has your wife acquired a weapon legally?

Who cares? You would rather a woman and a child be left alone defenseless?

 

[Correll]

This is the man's task. It has always been this way and it worked. According to your logic, we should distribute rifled weapons to children. That's bullshit. These problems are generated not by the fact that a woman does not have a weapon, but by the fact that the leftish scum has spawned criminality.

I agree that the criminals are the problem.

Guns in the hands of the intended victims, is always part of the solution.

 

[Natural Citizen]

2nd Amendment provides the creation of the state militia to defend the rights of the people of the state. What is the mechanism for creating such a militia, is it stipulated somewhere? Could it be a spontaneous militia, should its creation first be discussed at the level of the State Council, or should there be a plebescite. Is this mechanism regulated by the law? What are the rules for the legal formation of a militia?

See Federalist numbers 28 and 46 by Hamilton and Madison. They explained the process of dealing with federal usurpers in great detail.

 

[rupol2000]

I agree that the criminals are the problem.

Guns in the hands of the intended victims, is always part of the solution.

no, it means that instead of solving problems, you are treating the symptoms of the same problem with crazy methods. Weapon possession is a responsibile deal and is used appropriately. Distribution of weapons to hysteric women and children is in itself a danger to society.
as a last resort, it can be legalized within the dwelling

 

[M14 Shooter]

it looks like a fairy tale for children

Your lack of meaningful, rational response, noted.

 

[Abatis]

2nd Amendment provides the creation of the state militia to defend the rights of the people of the state.

No, it doesn't. The 2nd Amendment does not speak to militia in any legal manner, shape or form. The 2nd Amendment has never been examined to inform on any aspect of militia organization or control.

What is the mechanism for creating such a militia, is it stipulated somewhere?

The authority to call-up, organize and command the citizens as militia is enumerated in the Constitution's grant of powers to Congress in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16 and Article 2, Section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution, establishing the President as Commander in Chief of the part of the militia in actual service to the nation.

Congress exercised that authority by enacting the Militia Act of 1792 (made permanent in 1795). Congress repealed and superseded those Militia Acts in 1903 when it federalized the state militias and absorbed them into the National Guard. The Militia Act of 1903 eliminated the 1792 Act's impressment of militia service on the citizens.

Could it be a spontaneous militia, should its creation first be discussed at the level of the State Council, or should there be a plebescite.

Currently there is no legal mechanism for any entity (federal, state, local governments or the citizens themselves) to organize the general citizenry as militia (selective service notwithstanding).

Is this mechanism regulated by the law? What are the rules for the legal formation of a militia?

As I said, there is none . . . The only legal "regulation" is there is no right for the citizens to form themselves as militia. Whatever laws that may be enacted that forbid the citizens to organize themselves as militia -- "to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms" -- do not violate any right retained / possessed by the citizen(s), see Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) and DC v Heller which reaffirmed Presser, saying:

"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."​

.

 

[9thIDdoc]

No, it doesn't. The 2nd Amendment does not speak to militia in any legal manner, shape or form. The 2nd Amendment has never been examined to inform on any aspect of militia organization or control.



The authority to call-up, organize and command the citizens as militia is enumerated in the Constitution's grant of powers to Congress in Article 1, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16 and Article 2, Section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution, establishing the President as Commander in Chief of the part of the militia in actual service to the nation.

Congress exercised that authority by enacting the Militia Act of 1792 (made permanent in 1795). Congress repealed and superseded those Militia Acts in 1903 when it federalized the state militias and absorbed them into the National Guard. The Militia Act of 1903 eliminated the 1792 Act's impressment of militia service on the citizens.



Currently there is no legal mechanism for any entity (federal, state, local governments or the citizens themselves) to organize the general citizenry as militia (selective service notwithstanding).



As I said, there is none . . . The only legal "regulation" is there is no right for the citizens to form themselves as militia. Whatever laws that may be enacted that forbid the citizens to organize themselves as militia -- "to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms" -- do not violate any right retained / possessed by the citizen(s), see Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) and DC v Heller which reaffirmed Presser, saying:

"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."​

.

Militias have been around throughout recorded history. Militias are formed by individuals or cities or counties or States or Nations. Militias are simply a group of armed civilians. The Constitution affirms the Right to keep and bare arms and the Right to assemble. I believe that constitutes a defacto militia. The government may not legally pass legislation that violates the Constitution. The American Revolution, The War of 1812, and The American Civil War (both sides) was fought mostly by militias that were sometimes "federalized" and sometimes not.

 

[Abatis]

The Constitution affirms the Right to keep and bare arms and the Right to assemble. I believe that constitutes a defacto militia. The government may not legally pass legislation that violates the Constitution.

I provided the case citations, you can either read the applicable law -or not- but the law doesn't require you to agree or "believe" it, for it to be true.

To voluntarily 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 a right to be claimed by the citizen under the Constitution.

Under the Constitution, armed bodies of citizens are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments. That means a state law that forbids bodies of citizens to associate together as a military organization, to drill or parade with arms unless authorized by the law, do not violate the Constitution, or any right of the citizen secured by the Constitution (yes, including assembly).

Read Presser and DC v Heller which, in 2008, reaffirmed this principle stated Presser.

.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I provided the case citations, you can either read the applicable law -or not- but the law doesn't require you to agree or "believe" it, for it to be true.

To voluntarily 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 a right to be claimed by the citizen under the Constitution.

Under the Constitution, armed bodies of citizens are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments. That means a state law that forbids bodies of citizens to associate together as a military organization, to drill or parade with arms unless authorized by the law, do not violate the Constitution, or any right of the citizen secured by the Constitution (yes, including assembly).

Read Presser and DC v Heller which, in 2008, reaffirmed this principle stated Presser.

.

Wrong. The Constitution trumps any law-including case law alleged precedent-passed by government at any level making them null void and without effect. That includes city county, State, and federal law.

 

[Abatis]

Wrong. The Constitution trumps any law-including case law alleged precedent-passed by government at any level making them null void and without effect. That includes city county, State, and federal law.

When I read that I envision you with your eyes squinted shut, fingers in your ears. shouting La, La, La, La, La at the top of your lungs.

 

[9thIDdoc]

When I read that I envision you with your eyes squinted shut, fingers in your ears. shouting La, La, La, La, La at the top of your lungs.

When I read what you wrote I see someone looking desperately for an excuse for government to throw out the Bill of Rights. Where exactly do you think that the Constitution restricts the formation of a militia to the State or federal governments? Militia is civilian; not military.

 

[Abatis]

When I read what you wrote I see someone looking desperately for an excuse for government to throw out the Bill of Rights.

LOL. I'm actually the person here that doesn't look to, or rely on, the Bill of Rights for my rights.

Where exactly do you think that the Constitution restricts the formation of a militia to the State or federal governments? Militia is civilian; not military.

The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers, powers "We the People" have granted to government. That "We the People" conferred (surrendered) the power to call-up, organize, train and deploy the citizens as militia to Congress, means that we can no longer claim any of those actions as a right.

Of course that principle flows in the opposite direction . . . The powers that "We the People" have retained and withheld and not conferred to the care and control of government, government can claim no interest in. Those retained powers are then called "rights", which are nothing more than "exceptions to powers which are not granted" to government (Federalist 84).

While the militia is drawn from the citizenry, it is not citizens forming themselves into militia, independent of law; no right to such action survives for as long as the Constitution is in force . . . Which is why, again, a state law that forbids bodies of citizens to associate together as a military organization, to drill or parade with arms unless authorized by law, does not violate the Constitution, or any right of the citizen secured by the Constitution.

Again, read Presser and DC v Heller.

 

[rupol2000]

No, it doesn't

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