The rules of organizing milita

[surada]

So, the US uses such armies but somehow that is not an American thing.

Do they use private armies in the US?

 

[ESay]

Do they use private armies in the US?

And now we should define what is a private army. A private security firm which has guards who can legally bear the arms can be considered as a private army?

 

[surada]

And now we should define what is a private army. A private security firm which has guards who can legally bear the arms can be considered as a private army?

I have no idea. Although Desantis talks about a private army that reports to him and Bannon talks about shock troops.

 

[Abatis]

America is a ''compound Republic.'' Which means a federation of State Republics and a central Republic, with the greater quantity and variety of power being retained by the government of each State when the Constitution was framed and adopted.

And to that point Presser is noteworthy. The holding of Presser is of course, the Illinois law barring citizens from assembling armed and marching and drilling as a militia, doesn't offend the 2nd Amendment. IOW, there is no right for private citizens to form militia outside the structure set out in the Constitution and duly enacted federal and state law.

That isn't the end of the larger issue for the Court because the reason why the 2nd Amendment wasn't violated was simply that the 2nd Amendment wasn't applicable to state law. That didn't really solve the question before the Court of whether the Illinois law violated the citizen's right to keep and bear arms because of two foundational, unalterable principles of the Constitution; two truths that could have implications on the holding. . . .

The first principle is, because the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.

The second complicating principle is, those citizens who posses that RKBA and are NOT members of the state's organized militia, do have some degree of security status under the Constitution, the Court says:

"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."​

This explains a mingled dependence, in the reverse of what is called nowadays "states rights" it also dispenses with some issues of incorporation for the RKBA . . . The states are flat-out barred from disarming the citizens because those armed citizens are the same resource the federal government depends upon for its security.

This is interesting also because it says that mandate against states disarming citizens exists without reference to the 2nd Amendment ("laying the constitutional provision in question out of view") and the federal protection of the citizen's RKBA against state action exists in two planes. It exists in the "general powers" and in the "prerogative of the general government." That word, prerogative, describes a underlying principle of our Constitutional Republic.

Because the Constitution promises to the states to forever provide a republican form of government, a power is thus granted by inference to keep that promise, to secure the continuance of our founding republican principles. The republican government that the founders embraced and established has as one of its most fundamental components, an armed citizenry ("it is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable . . ." as SCOTUS puts it).

The federal government then, in keeping that republican promise, can not allow any state to act in an 'un-republican' fashion, such as disarming the citizens. Understand also that the principle works both ways; the federal government can not act to disarm the citizens because the states rely on those same citizens and their guns, for their security.

As an aside, Presser makes it very clear that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment does not belong to the states to preserve any state militia power. If it did, the Court would have tested and applied the 2nd Amendment's scope and restriction on the federal "general powers" and the "prerogative of the general government" that works to bind the states, not tsting it against the state's claimed militia power to require a permit for an armed march by private citizens.

You are absolutely correct, most people today do not give the compound republic we have, the weight and respect it deserves.

 

[9thIDdoc]

And to that point Presser is noteworthy. The holding of Presser is of course, the Illinois law barring citizens from assembling armed and marching and drilling as a militia, doesn't offend the 2nd Amendment. IOW, there is no right for private citizens to form militia outside the structure set out in the Constitution and duly enacted federal and state law.

That isn't the end of the larger issue for the Court because the reason why the 2nd Amendment wasn't violated was simply that the 2nd Amendment wasn't applicable to state law. That didn't really solve the question before the Court of whether the Illinois law violated the citizen's right to keep and bear arms because of two foundational, unalterable principles of the Constitution; two truths that could have implications on the holding. . . .

The first principle is, because the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.

The second complicating principle is, those citizens who posses that RKBA and are NOT members of the state's organized militia, do have some degree of security status under the Constitution, the Court says:

"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."​

This explains a mingled dependence, in the reverse of what is called nowadays "states rights" it also dispenses with some issues of incorporation for the RKBA . . . The states are flat-out barred from disarming the citizens because those armed citizens are the same resource the federal government depends upon for its security.

This is interesting also because it says that mandate against states disarming citizens exists without reference to the 2nd Amendment ("laying the constitutional provision in question out of view") and the federal protection of the citizen's RKBA against state action exists in two planes. It exists in the "general powers" and in the "prerogative of the general government." That word, prerogative, describes a underlying principle of our Constitutional Republic.

Because the Constitution promises to the states to forever provide a republican form of government, a power is thus granted by inference to keep that promise, to secure the continuance of our founding republican principles. The republican government that the founders embraced and established has as one of its most fundamental components, an armed citizenry ("it is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable . . ." as SCOTUS puts it).

The federal government then, in keeping that republican promise, can not allow any state to act in an 'un-republican' fashion, such as disarming the citizens. Understand also that the principle works both ways; the federal government can not act to disarm the citizens because the states rely on those same citizens and their guns, for their security.

As an aside, Presser makes it very clear that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment does not belong to the states to preserve any state militia power. If it did, the Court would have tested and applied the 2nd Amendment's scope and restriction on the federal "general powers" and the "prerogative of the general government" that works to bind the states, not tsting it against the state's claimed militia power to require a permit for an armed march by private citizens.

You are absolutely correct, most people today do not give the compound republic we have, the weight and respect it deserves.

The fact that you continually ignore is that Pressor does no such thing. It is simply an opinion that cities and towns probably have the authority to make law governing parading in the streets of their towns. You simply jump to wild-eyed unwarranted unsupported conclusions in your efforts to make it something it is not. It makes no opinion about existing law, or the formation of militia, nor does it address the effect of the 2nd Amendment on State law. Massive spin on your part.

The first principle is, because the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.

The Supreme Court has indeed ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right keep and bear arms and is a Right of the individual citizen.
If the unorganized militia refers to pretty much all citizens then the Right to bear arms has great effect on raising militia because in most cases they were required bring their own arms. No arms=no militia.

As an aside, Presser makes it very clear that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment does not belong to the states to preserve any state militia power.

No spit? Obviously the Individual Right exists to preserve a potential militia that is formed of individual citizens.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Private armies are not American.

State militias are not private armies moron. And Militias are VERY American been with us since Colonial times.

 

[surada]

State militias are not private armies moron. And Militias are VERY American been with us since Colonial times.

They didn't have the Naational Guard in Colonial times.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They didn't have the Naational Guard in Colonial times.

States still have militias that are not National Guard, All the Guard is is the federalized section of the Militia.

 

[surada]

States still have militias that are not National Guard, All the Guard is is the federalized section of the Militia.

Which states?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What states have a militia?

Currently, only Texas, Ohio, Alaska and New York have uniformed naval militias. Only Texas, California, Vermont, and Puerto Rico have an air wing, though Indiana formerly had an Air Guard Reserve.

askinglot.com

What states have a militia?

Currently, only Texas, Ohio, Alaska and New York have uniformed naval militias. Only Texas, California, Vermont, and Puerto Rico have an air wing, though Indiana formerly had an Air Guard Reserve.

askinglot.com

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Read the link 23 states have militias called state defense forces.

 

[surada]

What states have a militia?

Currently, only Texas, Ohio, Alaska and New York have uniformed naval militias. Only Texas, California, Vermont, and Puerto Rico have an air wing, though Indiana formerly had an Air Guard Reserve.

askinglot.com

What states have a militia?

Currently, only Texas, Ohio, Alaska and New York have uniformed naval militias. Only Texas, California, Vermont, and Puerto Rico have an air wing, though Indiana formerly had an Air Guard Reserve.

askinglot.com

Who pays for their weapons, wages and training?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Who pays for their weapons, wages and training?

that would depend on state law.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dude, the question is and always has been focused on the organized militia and the unorganized militia and what the particular qualities are of those bodies -- as they relate to "militia" under the Constitution.

The unorganized militia are not militia in the legal sense of the Constitution. Private citizens, not in law obligated to serve and not "enrolled and notified" have no militia impressment, no militia regulations act upon them -- expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

Members of the organized militia have no need for a "right to keep and bear arms"; everything they do, even the type of arm they are mandated to provide himself with, is a legal obligation with penalty for evasion.

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.

We know the second is true. Just people with narratives try and hide this fact because it's inconvenient for their narrative.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

It's all right here.

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

The clause they were talking about.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

He also said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

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

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

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

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

Mr Gerry even said (after the first of my quotes): "Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

He's talking about the militia. He's talking about PROTECTING the militia.

How do you protect the militia from the federal government which can call the militia up to federal service?

1) You make the weaponry civilian weaponry. The feds can't then call you up, take your gun, and sent you back again. Hence the right to keep arms for individuals to be able to own their own weapons.

2) You make a right to be in the militia. If the feds can't stop you from being in the militia, they can't destroy the militia by removing all the people. As Mr Gerry put it: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Now, on to the Dick Act.

The feds wanted a militia that would serve their purposes. The contemporary militia simply did not do that as shown in the Mexican Wars. So they made the National Guard to be that militia that could be more professional. But they had a problem. If they made only the National Guard, individuals would be able to demand their right to be in the militia, and therefore they'd be able to join the National Guard. So they made the "unorganized militia" to tell everyone "you're already in the militia, so you can't demand to be in the National Guard".

Article 1, Section 8 says "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia"

Putting the militia into the "Organized militia" and "unorganized militia" is "organizing the Militia", which the US federal government has the power to do. It arms that militia, it disciplines that militia too. It's all very constitutional.

There doesn't need to be a militia act. The feds do not need to act on anything if they choose not to. They have powers. They don't need to use those powers if they choose not to.

 

[9thIDdoc]

They didn't have the Naational Guard in Colonial times.

The British were fought and defeated by local militia with some (mostly naval) from France.

minutemen meaning - Google Search

Battle of Kings Mountain​

October 7, 1780

Description​

The Battle of Kings Mountain was a military engagement between Patriot and Loyalist militias in South Carolina during the Southern Campaign of the American Revolutionary War, resulting in a decisive victory for the Patriots. Wikipedia

 

[Abatis]

The fact that you continually ignore is that Pressor does no such thing. It is simply an opinion that cities and towns probably have the authority to make law governing parading in the streets of their towns.

Wrong . . . not just "parading" and definitely not just "probably" . . .

Presser unequivocally, absolutely holds that states are authorized under the US Constitution to prohibit, "any body of men whatever, other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this state, and the troops of the United States, to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms in any city or town of this state, without the license of the governor thereof, . . . "

Does that penetrate your thick skull? For citizens to just associate together as a military company or organization, in private, anywhere in the state, even in the rural countryside or on top of a desolate mountaintop, is a violation of law.

Here's more Presser on that point for you:

"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."​

It makes no opinion about existing law,

Yeah, it sure did, on multiple levels and multiple existing laws.

First, the Supreme Court followed its own "settled rule" that the specific laws the appellants were charged under ("sections 5 and 6 of article 11") were separable from the entire body of the Military Code of Illinois and their constitutionality could be examined separately.

Then SCOTUS in Presser methodically rules that "sections 5 and 6 of article 11" of the Military Code of Illinois, which, again, "prohibit any body of men, other than the organized militia of the state and the troops of the United States, from associating as a military company", did not violate;

Art. I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 of the Constitution, OR
the Militia Act of 1792, OR
the Militia Act of 1795, OR
the 2nd Amendment, OR
the 14th Amendment.

Does that penetrate your thick skull?

nor does it address the effect of the 2nd Amendment on State law.

See, now that stupid crap just makes me think you are just trolling. Just in case you are just that ignorant, that utterly uninformed and just so arrogantly obstinate, if there is one thing Presser is known for it is citing Cruikshank and quoting Cruikshank, that the 2nd Amendment is not applicable to, or enforceable upon state law.

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, . . . do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that 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, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, . . . "​

How can you defend your stupid statement that, "nor does [Presser] address the effect of the 2nd Amendment on State law"? Really, where the hell did that conclusion come from, it's obvious you never read the case.

Why do you feel the compulsion to say shit when you obviously have no idea, have no knowledge of the topic? Or is it that you purposefully say shit that is wrong, because you get off seeing people answer your absurdities?

Whatever your affliction is, whether it is innocent ignorance or purposeful idiocy, I'm done with you.

I have given you nothing but absolutely correct on the law replies and given you every chance to at least try to fake trying to be competent.

Any reply to me will be responded to with a link to this post.

Massive spin on your part.

Maybe you would be more in your element HERE, maybe find some nice carrot cake recipes

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The militia can't be used LEGALLY against the feds. However the militia was always intended to be the last resort if the government were to become bad government. But who gets to decide whether it's bad or not?

The people decide through the democratic process.

Absent consensus of the majority of the people that government has become ‘bad’ or ‘tyrannical,’ any armed insurrection against the government would be lawless rebellion and treason.

That’s why the Framers never sanctioned insurrectionist dogma; the First Amendment, the rule of law, and our democratic institutions safeguard the people from tyranny, not the Second Amendment.

“But what if the rule of law fails and government rejects the First Amendment and destroys our democratic institutions?”

In that case the American Experiment has failed, the Republic is lost, the Constitution eliminated, and the question of the role of the ‘militia’ rendered moot, beyond reclamation by armed insurrection – the country subject to the capricious tyranny of lawless mob rule.

That’s why it’s vital to oppose efforts to undermine the political process and our democratic institutions – once gone, there’s no bringing them back through ‘force of arms.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is simply an opinion that cities and towns probably have the authority to make law governing parading in the streets of their towns.

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The people decide through the democratic process.

Absent consensus of the majority of the people that government has become ‘bad’ or ‘tyrannical,’ any armed insurrection against the government would be lawless rebellion and treason.

That’s why the Framers never sanctioned insurrectionist dogma; the First Amendment, the rule of law, and our democratic institutions safeguard the people from tyranny, not the Second Amendment.

“But what if the rule of law fails and government rejects the First Amendment and destroys our democratic institutions?”

In that case the American Experiment has failed, the Republic is lost, the Constitution eliminated, and the question of the role of the ‘militia’ rendered moot, beyond reclamation by armed insurrection – the country subject to the capricious tyranny of lawless mob rule.

That’s why it’s vital to oppose efforts to undermine the political process and our democratic institutions – once gone, there’s no bringing them back through ‘force of arms.’

Wait, the US has a "democratic process"? I think not.

No way in hell a democratic process would end up with two parties getting 98% of the vote and all the positions of power, all the seats in Congress and the Senate.

Also, when it comes to the militia being needed, whatever little democracy people might think exists now will be totally up schitt creak by then.

The reality is, if you're taking down the government, you're breaking the rules. But the other side might have broken the rules too.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Wrong . . . not just "parading" and definitely not just "probably" . . .

Presser unequivocally, absolutely holds that states are authorized under the US Constitution to prohibit, "any body of men whatever, other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this state, and the troops of the United States, to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms in any city or town of this state, without the license of the governor thereof, . . . "

Does that penetrate your thick skull? For citizens to just associate together as a military company or organization, in private, anywhere in the state, even in the rural countryside or on top of a desolate mountaintop, is a violation of law.

Here's more Presser on that point for you:

"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."​

Yeah, it sure did, on multiple levels and multiple existing laws.

First, the Supreme Court followed its own "settled rule" that the specific laws the appellants were charged under ("sections 5 and 6 of article 11") were separable from the entire body of the Military Code of Illinois and their constitutionality could be examined separately.

Then SCOTUS in Presser methodically rules that "sections 5 and 6 of article 11" of the Military Code of Illinois, which, again, "prohibit any body of men, other than the organized militia of the state and the troops of the United States, from associating as a military company", did not violate;

Art. I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 of the Constitution, OR
the Militia Act of 1792, OR
the Militia Act of 1795, OR
the 2nd Amendment, OR
the 14th Amendment.

Does that penetrate your thick skull?



See, now that stupid crap just makes me think you are just trolling. Just in case you are just that ignorant, that utterly uninformed and just so arrogantly obstinate, if there is one thing Presser is known for it is citing Cruikshank and quoting Cruikshank, that the 2nd Amendment is not applicable to, or enforceable upon state law.

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, . . . do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that 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, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, . . . "​

How can you defend your stupid statement that, "nor does [Presser] address the effect of the 2nd Amendment on State law"? Really, where the hell did that conclusion come from, it's obvious you never read the case.

Why do you feel the compulsion to say shit when you obviously have no idea, have no knowledge of the topic? Or is it that you purposefully say shit that is wrong, because you get off seeing people answer your absurdities?

Whatever your affliction is, whether it is innocent ignorance or purposeful idiocy, I'm done with you.

I have given you nothing but absolutely correct on the law replies and given you every chance to at least try to fake trying to be competent.

Any reply to me will be responded to with a link to this post.



Maybe you would be more in your element HERE, maybe find some nice carrot cake recipes

You won't be missed. You have made it obvious that you believe reality is whatever you choose to say it is and your inability back up your idiotic judgements or answer questions has gotten really old.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.

www.law.cornell.edu

Presser unequivocally, absolutely holds that states are authorized under the US Constitution to prohibit, "any body of men whatever, other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this state, and the troops of the United States, to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms in any city or town of this state, without the license of the governor thereof, . . . "

"...other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this state, and the troops of the United States,..."

Unorganized militia can be "volunteer". Organized militia (by current definition) cannot. Units or individuals that have been "called up" "called into or pressed into service" "drafted" or "conscripted" can no longer be said to be "volunteer" because they can no longer legally decide to "unvolunteer" or change their mind about serving. I continue to submit that militia are civilian volunteers and that any troops that are required to serve are regular troops; not volunteers. Don't believe you can have it both ways. Regular troops are governed by the UCMJ while civilians (including militia) are not except under special circumstances.

You were unable to show how your theory of the law accounts for the fact that during that period and for a considerable time afterward most militia unites were NOT formed by State or Federal governments but were often "called into Federal service (aka federalized) later on.

Nor establish or seek to establish any such law rule, statute or regulation .

"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​

​

​

​