So wrong ^^^. The Framers did by defining a well regulated militia. Read Article I, sec. 8, clause 15 & 16. No where in COTUS is the establishment of a Militia legally established by a bunch of disaffected citizens.
Unless you support and defend the Mafia and Neighborhood Gang members you must agree, that a Well Regulated Militia is what the Framers approved, and not some rubes in camouflage carrying guns and pretending they want to take their country back.
Are you saying that you are one of those commies who wants to conflate "well regulated" with "encumbered with regulations" , as if the original context that lefties try to hide never existed?
I'm not a "commie". Your use of that term as a pejorative and an ad hominem is noted.
If you are suggesting Well Regulated are Encumbered with
Regulations as written in clause 16, I suggest you read it.
What you consider encumbered regulations are not for you or me to decide. It is up to the Congress for, "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"...leaving to the individual states, "the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress:
The clear implication is that the National Guard and the USNR are the Militias, and no other such Militia exists legally.
You are just plain wrong on every level.
Prove it.
Okay...
10 U.S.C. § 311 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 10. Armed Forces § 311. 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.
Rather than argue the most obvious objections you are about to lob at me, I decided not to reinvent the wheel. Here is your response:
What is the "Militia"? And Who are "The People"? | Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
In addition, the earliest courts, including the United States Supreme Court had the opportunity to over-rule the state courts. They didn't. So, let's review some of the more important ones:
According to Wikipedia:
"
The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
“
The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
"
The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:
“
The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is
absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an
unalienable Right. It is above the reach of the government.
Final Note: IF the militia is limited as per my link to any certain age group, that was nullified by The Civil Rights Act of 1964 because firearms have been legally connected to Interstate Commerce. And Title II of that Act outlaws age discrimination in areas of Interstate Commerce.
Regardless of which legal defense I'm forced to advocate for, you are wrong on every level.
