What is Meant by "Well Regulated"?

[Open Bolt]

LOL.

"Well-regulated" means that the militia in question is able to fight as a single coordinated unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

 

[Abatis]

can you point to a law that forbids people from forming there own militia???

Most states have laws prohibiting paramilitary activity; Idaho's is typical:

• 46-802. UNORGANIZED ASSOCIATIONS PROHIBITED — PARADES PROHIBITED — EXCEPTIONS. No body of men, other than the regularly organized national guard, the unorganized militia when called into service of the state, or of the United States, and except such as are regularly recognized and provided for by the laws of the state of Idaho and of the United States, shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with firearms in any city or town of this state.

 

[Abatis]

Do you guys think that anyone will ever be successfully prosecuted for merely referring to themselves as a militia and practicing with guns?

That is not my argument. My argument is simply that the federal 2nd Amendment is no shield to repel prosecution that prosecution and conviction is permissible under the 2nd Amendment.

There is no enforceable "Second Amendment right" for citizens to claim if a government decides to prosecute them for military activity not authorized by state or federal law. The relevant law at issue in Presser, under which the citizens were prosecuted and then challenged, claiming the protections of the 2ndA, said:

• It shall not be lawful for 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, . . .

SCOTUS sustained the convictions and rejected the 2nd Amendment claims.

And if so, do you think the courts will uphold the relevant law when it is challenged on grounds of freedom of speech and association?

That was addressed by SCOTUS in Presser and soundly rejected as well:

• The only clause in the constitution which, upon any pretense, could be said to have any relation whatever to his right to associate with others as a military company, is found in the first amendment, which declares that 'congress shall make no laws * * * abridging * * * the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This is a right which it was held in U. S. v. Cruikshank, above cited, was an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guarantied by, the United States. But it was held in the same case that the right peaceably to assemble was not protected by the clause referred to, unless the purpose of the assembly was to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 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.

It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate 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. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.​

​

And since I am quoting SCOTUS at length, it seems appropriate to quote Heller's reaffirmation of Presser, that the Second Amendment does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations:

• 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. Justice Stevens presses Presser into service to support his view that the right to bear arms is limited to service in the militia by joining Presser’s brief discussion of the Second Amendment with a later portion of the opinion making the seemingly relevant (to the Second Amendment) point that the plaintiff was not a member of the state militia. Unfortunately for Justice Stevens’ argument, that later portion deals with the Fourteenth Amendment; it was the Fourteenth Amendment to which the plaintiff’s nonmembership in the militia was relevant. Thus, Justice Stevens’ statement that Presser “suggested that… nothing in the Constitution protected the use of arms outside the context of a militia,” post, at 40, is simply wrong. Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.

.

 

[Abatis]

there are no laws that forbid it so theres nothing they can be charged with,,

as you say,, freedom of speech and association,,

Wrong, wrong, wrong . . . on all accounts.

 

[Abatis]

I think there is some obscure law somewhere that does forbid it. But I don't think it will ever be used. At least, not against people who merely call themselves a militia and practice shooting guns.

If it is ever used to prosecute such people, I expect that it'll be struck down.

What part of Presser don't you understand?

What you claim won't 'ever be used' has already been used -- that's what Presser was about!

Your argument was presented and argued in those citizen's defense and it was rejected and then all those principles in law were transported from 1886 to 2008 and reaffirmed in Heller.

You are arguing shit that never was and never can be and that crap is harming the true defense of gun rights by introducing fantasy bullshit, absolutely wrong on the law and indisputably unsupported in constitutional rights theory.

You should stop that and only argue what is true and defensible and "constitutional".

 

[progressive hunter]

Most states have laws prohibiting paramilitary activity; Idaho's is typical:

• 46-802. UNORGANIZED ASSOCIATIONS PROHIBITED — PARADES PROHIBITED — EXCEPTIONS. No body of men, other than the regularly organized national guard, the unorganized militia when called into service of the state, or of the United States, and except such as are regularly recognized and provided for by the laws of the state of Idaho and of the United States, shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with firearms in any city or town of this state.

I always read the rules and then go ahead and do what I want,,

in this case dont wear uniforms or run around in public acting like GI joe,, and call yourselves a community watch group,,

 

[Failzero]

Most states have laws prohibiting paramilitary activity; Idaho's is typical:

• 46-802. UNORGANIZED ASSOCIATIONS PROHIBITED — PARADES PROHIBITED — EXCEPTIONS. No body of men, other than the regularly organized national guard, the unorganized militia when called into service of the state, or of the United States, and except such as are regularly recognized and provided for by the laws of the state of Idaho and of the United States, shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with firearms in any city or town of this state.

Parade “ Without” Firearms ( except
CCW / CHL / CWP ) But in Uniforms is legal in Ca.

 

[Open Bolt]

What part of Presser don't you understand?

It's more that I think it was a bad ruling. If some private military body started trying to arrest people and enforce the law on their own or something, I can see how the government would have every right to step in and stop them.

But if all they do is gather together in the woods and announce that that they are a militia, I think that falls under freedoms of association and speech.

 

[Abatis]

I always read the rules and then go ahead and do what I want,,

in this case dont wear uniforms or run around in public acting like GI joe,, and call yourselves a community watch group,,

A criminal that consistently evades capture often knows the law better than a run-of-the-mill cop.

 

[progressive hunter]

A criminal that consistently evades capture often knows the law better than a run-of-the-mill cop.

the average citizen knows the law better than 90% of cops,,

 

[ralfy]

"Well-regulated" means that the militia in question is able to fight as a single coordinated unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

Yes, that and more are explained in the Militia Acts. Also, you missed the part about who's in command. See Art. 1 Sec. 8.

You are obviously a know-nothing about this issue.

 

[Open Bolt]

Yes, that and more are explained in the Militia Acts.

Cite? Let's see a quote of that being explained by the militia acts.

Also, you missed the part about who's in command. See Art. 1 Sec. 8.

Because that is not what was asked.

I also didn't bother to address the price of tea in China.

You are obviously a know-nothing about this issue.

I know more about this single issue than you know about everything.

 

[Failzero]

Cite? Let's see a quote of that being explained by the militia acts.



Because that is not what was asked.

I also didn't bother to address the price of tea in China.



I know more about this single issue than you know about everything.

Were you in the Largest Militia in the Country ( California State Militia ) for 4 years ( earning rank of Sergeant ) or Are you a former JAG and current constitutional lawyer ?

 

[flan327]

Right, liberals are promoting the Russian military not following orders and turning against Putin, but they seem to believe US military would have no issue with going to war against US citizens.

More heaping piles of crap

 

[flan327]

Were you in the Largest Militia in the Country ( California State Militia ) for 4 years ( earning rank of Sergeant ) or Are you a former JAG and current constitutional lawyer ?

Proof?

 

[Open Bolt]

Were you in the Largest Militia in the Country ( California State Militia ) for 4 years ( earning rank of Sergeant ) or Are you a former JAG and current constitutional lawyer ?

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

 

[BackAgain]

More heaping piles of crap

Fran is easily roiled.

 

[ralfy]

Cite? Let's see a quote of that being explained by the militia acts.



Because that is not what was asked.

I also didn't bother to address the price of tea in China.



I know more about this single issue than you know about everything.

Don't ask to be spoonfed.

 

[Open Bolt]

Don't ask to be spoonfed.

Your refusal to provide a cite confirms that you were lying.

 

[Failzero]

As a Currently inactive Militiaman I wanna be spoon fed all the Mishegoss I can get about Militia in the minds of others