2nd amendment violations..

[Inhimwelive]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It always amazes me that gun owners make such a fuss over the right to own firearms but they've completely given up the most important part of the 2nd amendment! What is that? Its the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" The writers new that government if not kept in check would grow to big and impose its will on the people by force.. Where is our well regulated militia?? Please don't say the national guard.. We have lost this right and don't seem to care..

 

[Sefner]

I would argue that the most important part of the 2A is the actionable part... that part that actually says the right being guaranteed.

Also, and some may disagree with me, but even now I don't see even this current government getting so tyrannical that the only option available is the use of force against it. We have those things called elections for reasons, and there is a reason the Framers made the House get re-elected every two years: so that if a group of legislators are acting against the will of the people they can be removed in a relatively short amount of time. No country ever descended into "vote from the rooftops" in two years. We are witnessing the importance of elections now, as many many incumbents are looking at losing their seats and the current majority party does not expect to be the majority following the elections because of the discontent of the people, who are predicted to give power to a different party with different ideals. This is working exactly as the Framers intended.

When people post things like this (especially with grammatical errors) it always makes me cringe because it fits right into the stereotype of gun owners that the media and Brady bunch portray. Most of us are not arming ourselves to protect us from the government, or the Feds, or the black helicopters. Most of us are law-abiding citizens that hope that we never have to protect ourselves from the government. But when we see posts that seem to hope that we do have to protect ourselves from the government, it conjures up images of the Hutaree and Timothy McVeigh and other incidents the government and media will use to justify infringing upon our rights. It becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. I fear a 1984, Big Brother, Soviet, Fascist, tyrannical government just as much as anyone else. And I see inklings of it in our current government (as I'm sure everyone does). But our current government is nowhere near the horror stories of 1984 or Communist Russia or Atlas Shrugged. Not even close. While the "defense of the free state" function of the 2A is a very valid and important one, there is a time for "using" that function. That time is not now. Should that time come, and I hope it never does, we will all know when it arrives.

I apologize for my abrasiveness, but being accused that I "don't seem to care" is a little too much. Some people are doing things every day to further our RKBA (yet we don't care?) and every time they make a step forward it seems that some "militia" or another Hutaree pops up, screams about The Feds and the banks and the Illuminati and ruins all of the progress. As a disclaimer, I realize that some militia are good, I'm sure you all know of the "militia" I am referring to.

Sorry for going off on a mild tangent, but we all know what is meant when people post about "defending the free state" and militias. We have not forgotten about it, we just know that there is a time for it, and right now is the time to campaign and vote for your favorite candidate for office.

 

[armoredman]

It's not a right that has been given up, it's a right that has been successfully demonized by the media into an instant blacklist by your neighbors and friends if they hear you are part of a "militia". The militia of the Revolutionary War is long gone, when drilled farmers and storekeepers made up part of the Continental Army, and stood by at the bridge at Concord and Lexington. The "militias" of today are held up to be a bastion of white supremists, (Black Panthers is a black supremist militia? Explore that further later), or end of the world types, the wild eyed gun crazed survivalist nuts, (that IS how we are portrayed), just waiting and praying to shoot it out with mobs of zombies.
There are a a few good ones, and some State Guards, like the Texas State Guard, that are as close to a well regulated, (drilled and trained, as the Founding fathers meant it), state militia as you can get to nowadays. I hope AZ passes that authorization next year, we'll see.
Now I'd have to say there are a lot of shooting clubs and such who might muster out together in case of extreme need, like Katrina or the LA Riots, but they wouldn't be caught dead wearing the label "militia", and the media has even blackened the name "Minuteman" with the border watchers of a few years ago.

 

[Inhimwelive]

assumptions

Sefner give me a break! My post neither states or implies that we should be stock piling arms to fight the threats that you have mentioned.. You are making huge assumptions about me and anyone else that thinks the right to bare arms means more then owning a gun to hunt..

"While the "defense of the free state" function of the 2A is a very valid and important one, there is a time for "using" that function. That time is not now. Should that time come, and I hope it never does, we will all know when it arrives"
When that time comes what will we do? We have no miliatia and any that would be organized would certainly be out manned untrained and out gunned..

 

[csmsss]

Given that nearly any definition of "militia" tends to be exclusionary, not inclusive, it's generally not useful to consider that clause the most important part of the 2nd Amendment. I consider it descriptive of intent, at best, and not nearly as important as the action clause of that sentence.

 

[Sefner]

My post neither states or implies that we should be stock piling arms to fight the threats that you have mentioned.. You are making huge assumptions about me and anyone else that thinks the right to bare arms means more then owning a gun to hunt..

That's ok (minus you making the assumption about me that I think guns are only for hunting), except this quote is two sentences later:

We have no miliatia and any that would be organized would certainly be out manned untrained and out gunned.

So which is it?

Yes, I am making huge assumptions about you. I don't even know you. That is why I only point out that you have bad grammar. The rest of my statements I leave to the general. But you are now proving that my assumptions were correct (see the second quote of this post) by saying that the general populace would be out-gunned by the government. This is the behavior and rhetoric that I was getting at in my post. It does not help the RKBA movement. It does not help avoid the situation that you seem to be so afraid of. It only inflames. I recommend we move this discussion to the topic of the purpose of the Militia clause of the 2A. csmsss has some good comments on that.

 

[RedneckFur]

Things may be bad, but we still have the right to write our representatives, the right to protest, and the ability to vote. We still have the means to change our government in a non-violent manner.

Taking up arms against the government is a last resort, when every other method of changing our government has failed. Things will have to get far, far worse before I'd even consider it. If you feel so strongly about the way things have turned, then write your representatives today. Make phonecalls to their office and tell them what they're doing wrong, and why you want them to change.

Go get involved in local government. Get to meet your local representatives. Volunteer in your community. Attend political rallies, study up on the constuition, law, history, and the histories of your local representatives. Work to educate thouse around you.l Convice somone to register to vote.

Its might not be as gung-ho sounding as going to washington with your SKS, but its how you will have meaningful, non-violent change in your goverment.

 

[Paul B.]

Well, as I understand it, "well regulated" in the language of the time meant "well trained." No waytoday do we have a well trained "militia" in the true sense of the word.

The folowing is something Iposted elsewhere about the time Zumbo made his error in judgement.

OK, lets discuss the 2nd Amendment. Good idea. It is my carefully considered opinion that the KEY WORD is MILITIA.

1. The Militia Act of 1792. One year after the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, Congress passed a law defining the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were to be members of the militia. Furthermore, every citizen was to be armed. The act stated:
"Every citizen...[shall] provide himself with a good musket, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints...."

The Militia Act of 1792 made no provision for any type of select militia such as the National Guard.

U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982) "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated BY LAW (emphasis mine) to possess a [military style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipmemnt....There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the national Guard."

Current Federal Law: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311. "The militia of the Untied States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and...under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.....

Supreme Court: U.S. v. Miller 1939 In this case, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense...[and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME. (emphasis mine)
(BTW, Miller lost in court because he did not show up. It was never taken into account that his no show was because he had passed away.)

More on Title 10 of the U.S. Code

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

Sec. 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 302, 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 of the Naval Militia.

Now it took me all of about ten minutes to find all that information. Just go to the Gun Owners of America's website and look for their firearms fact sheet. There's 24 pages of good information there.

I plan on making copies of the above and sending each of my representatives their own personal copy. Feel free to do the same. Maybe, if they get flooded with as many letters with the above as Zumbo's sponsers did on his major foot in mouth problem, the idiots just might get a message. Leave our guns alone.
Paul B.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Where is our well regulated militia?? Please don't say the national guard.. We have lost this right and don't seem to care..

How do you figure that we have lost the right to a well-regulated militia? Not only (as has been noted above) is the militia specifically provided for in Federal law, I don't think there is a single state that prohibits the forming of a militia ... unless it is done for the express purpose of overthrowing the government. In fact, many states have "state guards" that are militias. They typically are an adjunct to that state's National Guard, but because they AREN'T National Guard they cannot be Federalized and taken away from the state when the regular Army runs out of cannon fodder.

 

[geetarman]

It is time for this to go away. This is turning into a group grope.

Geetarman

 

[Al Norris]

Not closing this.

We have not lost the "right." That part of the 2A is in fact, a collective right of the States. Since the States don't want their own militias, there is nothing for us to do about it.... Except lobby the State for one. Good luck on that!

Now, I'm left wondering how long it will take before Tennessee Gentleman comes in and says his piece?

 

[Inhimwelive]

Rights

Well as far as I'm concerned we may have not lost the right on paper but we certainly have lost it in reality.. I do not believe for one second that the US Gov would stand for the formation of a militia that was both large enough and well armed enough to overthrow the government if necessary.. This is only exacerbated by the fact that they already have infringed on our right to bear arms.. Infringed meaning to limit or undermine.. Our right to bare arms is so limited and we are so outmatched that if we were ever in a position where the people had to fight back we might as well be using sticks and stones.

"I don't think there is a single state that prohibits the forming of a militia ... unless it is done for the express purpose of overthrowing the government."

Well gee then if we need it I would say we are up a creek with out a paddle!

 

[BaboonBlockParty]

My generation (Gen Y) wouldn't form militias because they see nothing to fight FOR. Patriotism is being bred out of the population, because you have to experience the struggle personally; Reading doesn't cut it. One day, sooner than later, we'll have to activate that mechanism within ourselves. If it's still there.

 

[maestro pistolero]

It could be worded: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the freedom of a secure state . . ." and it would also be true.

Unless we are ready for a police state, to retain security, freedom and a balance of power between the Gub'mint and the plain folks, we must arm ourselves.

 

[raimius]

I do not believe for one second that the US Gov would stand for the formation of a militia that was both large enough and well armed enough to overthrow the government if necessary.

Short of labeling state agencies as terrorist groups, how do you think that would go down?

Correct me if I am wrong, but a state-run militia could conceiveably get around the Hughes Amendment by its status as a government agency, right? Fortunately, we are not at an 1859-ish situation. I don't see a civil war waiting to be released.

 

[Skans]

Maintaining a "Well Regulated Militia" is but one example or justification as to why the drafters felt it necessary to declare that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But the OP is right - the Drafters certainly intended that the citizens ALSO have the right to form and maintain an well regulated militia - apart from the federal government.

 

[Al Norris]

Where is our well regulated militia??

Where? Ask your State! They don't want the expense of one.

I do not believe for one second that the US Gov would stand for the formation of a militia that was both large enough and well armed enough to overthrow the government if necessary.

No single State could afford such a monetary layout nor does any single State have the manpower needed for something like that. It's what is known as a non-sequitur.

Correct me if I am wrong, but a state-run militia could conceiveably get around the Hughes Amendment by its status as a government agency, right?

There would be nothing to get around. If a State wanted to spend the money and equip its militia with full-auto M4's and just about anything else they care to spend money on.

...citizens ALSO have the right to form and maintain an well regulated militia - apart from the federal government.

But not apart from the State(s).

While most founding period militias were local, they were still run by the State.

Inhimwelive, State Militias were never just for overthrowing a tyranny - that was the anti-federalist view (remember, they mostly lost). They were also to be ready in case the central (federal) government needed them. You seemed to have skipped that part of the constitution. Why is that?

 

[Scattergun Bob]

Inhimwelive

I believe the answer to your questions is the following links.

The California State Military Reserve is a STATE authorized force that is a true Militia. I was a member for a short time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Military_Reserve

Another State Military Reserve
http://www.pasmr.org/

Here is the tinplate to start the creation of a State Military Reserve in your state, if one does not exist.
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/mvc/550-567.html

I think you under estimate the will of the people, and the commitment of our citizens.
On Feb 6th 1942, a officer stood in front of the armory in Santa Clara, Ca. His speech was simple " How many of you will stand with me and defend the shores of our fair state, while the younger men go forth to battle the terrible enemies that close upon us?" My grandfather though disabled and many other veterns of WWI answered WE WILL SIR. Armed with 30-40 Krags and Springfield trapdoors they did there service to the state on the beaches of Northern California.

I am sure there are others like myself that await the call to defend our given states, if the need should arise.

Good Luck & Be Safe

 

[Aguila Blanca]

While most founding period militias were local, they were still run by the State.

I disagree.

First, the militias were in existence before we HAD states. Pre-Revolution, we had "colonies." And, while I am not 100 percent certain, I am sure in my own mind that the militias (plural) were indeed local, not run by the state colonial government.

As to prohibitions on militias, in most states they are not (as I already posted above) prohibited. Here is the law from Pennsylvania. Several other states' laws I've looked at read much the same:

§ 5515. Prohibiting of paramilitary training.
(a) Definitions.--As used in this section the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
subsection:
"Civil disorder." Any public disturbance involving acts of
violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes
an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the
property or person of any other individual.
"Explosive or incendiary device." Includes:
(1) dynamite and all other forms of high explosives;
(2) any explosive bomb, grenade, missile or similar
device; and
(3) any incendiary bomb or grenade, fire bomb or similar
device, including any device which:
(i) consists of or includes a breakable container
including a flammable liquid or compound and a wick
composed of any material which, when ignited, is capable
of igniting such flammable liquid or compound; and
(ii) can be carried or thrown by one individual
acting alone.
"Firearm." Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be
converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive;
or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.
"Law enforcement officer." Any officer or employee of the
United States, any state, any political subdivision of a state
or the District of Columbia and such term shall specifically
include, but shall not be limited to, members of the National
Guard, as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 101(9), members of the
organized militia of any state or territory of the United
States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the District of
Columbia, not included within the definition of National Guard
as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 101(9) and members of the armed forces
of the United States.
(b) Prohibited training.--
(1) Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person
the use, application or making of any firearm, explosive or
incendiary device or technique capable of causing injury or
death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or
intending that same will be unlawfully employed for use in,
or in furtherance of, a civil disorder commits a misdemeanor
of the first degree.
(2) Whoever assembles with one or more persons for the
purpose of training with, practicing with or being instructed
in the use of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device or
technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, said
person intending to employ unlawfully the same for use in or
in furtherance of a civil disorder commits a misdemeanor of
the first degree.
(c) Exemptions.--Nothing contained in this section shall
make unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer which is
performed in the lawful performance of his official duties.
(d) Excluded activities.--Nothing contained in this section
shall make unlawful any activity of the Game Commission, Fish
and Boat Commission, or any law enforcement agency, or any
hunting club, rifle club, rifle range, pistol range, shooting
range or other program or individual instruction intended to
teach the safe handling or use of firearms, archery equipment or
other weapons or techniques employed in connection with lawful
sports or other lawful activities.
(June 11, 1982, P.L.476, No.138, eff. 180 days; Mar. 19, 1992,
P.L.18, No.7, eff. imd.)

1992 Amendment. Act 7 amended subsec. (d).
1982 Amendment. Act 138 added section 5515.
Cross References. Section 5515 is referred to in sections
6105, 6120 of this title.

 

[mack59]

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers


Perhaps some training - NRA, apple tree, and the like and that is about it.


The militia even in the days of the founders could rarely stand toe to toe against regulars and win. Even then the militia was most valuable in hit and run, cut supplies, and force the enemy to over-extend by requiring boots on the ground to hold it. Back then the regular army had few superior weapons to the militia (more cannon, more ships of the line)- but their organization and discipline usually carried the day.

Today modern militaries by far field weapons systems that would make any attempt for a militia to fight them toe to toe suicidal. The superior firepower is overwhelming and the communications and intelligence gathering and sharing make the modern military beyond overwhelming in such a scenario.

However, that does not mean a militia cannot defeat such a modern military - in fact the odds are that it could. That is the strength of guerilla warfare - take a sizable portion of the population that after a long train of abuses and no means of redress - becomes unalterably opposed to the government and you would begin to build a popular insurgency movement.

Much like the American Revolution - it would take time - decades of political conflict - sporadic episodes of civil disobedience - and finally a government intransient enough to push it over the edge by using force to contravene that basic freedoms of its citizens. Slowly the citizens would rebel with acts of civil disobedience and destruction of government property. Eventually that would lead to the use of arms to resist government force and that would eventually grow into guerilla warfare.

It would be a terrible and bloody mess. And I don’t foresee such happening in the near future for our country and I pray that it would never happen. But then again - I don’t think in 1918 most people foresaw the genocide of Hitler or the butchery of Stalin.

All of us capable of keeping and bearing arms are the unorganized militia - whether or not that is officially recognized or codified - and all of us have the duty to preserve liberty and the principles of freedom - whether we took a formal oath or not. To that end we should avail ourselves of all the tools available - the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box - and in that order too.

To me a well regulated militia - is not just trained in the use of arms - for that by itself is useless - it is also trained in understanding the principles of liberty - being committed to the cause of liberty - and understanding that we have inalienable rights endowed by our creator - (you can’t make a free man a slave or a slave a free man - for liberty first and foremost lives within us or it lives not at all).

That commitment to liberty and the desire for freedom is what will lead us to mount the soap box, to stand for election and to vote at the ballot box, to nullify the unjust law in the jury box, and finally if needs must to pick up the cartridge box.

So look in the mirror and look in the hearts of your fellow citizens and then you will know if a well regulated militia lives or not.