2nd amendment violations..

[44 AMP]

The wrong argument?

Perhaps I just read it differently, but I think this discussion got started off on the wrong track.

We are discussing rolleyes what a militia is, if militias are a good thing, where has our militia gone?, and all the while, not (IMHO) not reading the 2nd Amendment properly. Perhaps its just a sign of the way we use language today, as opposed to the way they used it when they wrote it?

The opening clause, is a preface (preparatory?) clause. It isn't intended to say anything more than explain why the second clause exists. To set the stage, so to speak.

Today, it might be written "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state....."

By limiting the govt's legal ability to restrict arms ownership of the people ("shall not be infringed"), the 2nd assures that we will have the equipment (arms) to supply a militia, without having to beg them from anyone else, should we feel it necessary to form militia, for the purpose of resisting tyranny, foreign agression, or any other valid reason.

Now, I will admit that in the past century, that pesky "infringement" part has been stepped on, worked around, and/or just openly ignored more than at any other time in our nation's history, but we have not given up, and the fight is far from lost.

Recent court decisions, basically re-affirming what our founders knew and generations of Americans have believed shows us that we have not been working for a lost cause, despite what those on the other side have worked so hard through the media to make the nation believe.

 

[Skans]

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.

The 2nd Amendment speaks in terms of "the right of the people". Not the right of the State or some central government. As someone else commented, States didn't have militias when the Constitution was drafted. Historically, there were no states just colonies controlled by the King. There is no question that Militias were intended by the Drafters to be private organizations which were not controled by any central government.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

In pre-Revolutionary days, militias typically were organized mostly on a town-by-town or perhaps county-by-county basis. Pretty much all able-bodied males were members, but whether membership was voluntary or mandatory depended on the particular area. Officers were usually elected from the membership. All weaponry was privately owned. It wasn't unusual for the local commander (typically wearing the rank of Colonel) to be the local wealthy gent who could afford his own cannon.

The OP is from Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania law does NOT prohibit militias, unless their purpose is to foment civil unrest. The purpose of the colonial militias was not to overthrow the King of England -- the purpose was to defend the colony. Under Pennsylvania law, you can start your own town-wide militia today, with the express purpose of defending the town in the event of a crisis during which the police are ineffective and the National Guard is not available.

There's your right, Sir. Get busy recruiting and training. Just don't tell people you're planning to take out the sitting government, and you'll be fine.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

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

I thought I smelled catnip! Sorry I have been busy at work and didn't get this thread.

Short answer is that the miltia is DEAD. The states and really the American People killed it. The bad truth is that most people do not like the military life and want no part of a compulsory (which it was in 1789) militia. George Washington wrote about it and even the citizen miltia champion TJ himself was force to admit that the militia was ill-equipped for war. It was a republican (small r) ideal that never came to pass.

Gun folks want the militia so they can own military weaponry to play with but no one else wants one. Al is right, ask your governor why you can't be in one and he/she will point to the suffering state budget which unlike the Fed MUST be balanced (unless you are CA) and they won't pony up the money.

If you want to hedge against tyranny VOTE! Be politically active and join the NRA. That will do more for freedom than the Tommy Gun in your closet (that you probably don't know how to use in modern combat).

In pre-Revolutionary days, militias typically were organized mostly on a town-by-town or perhaps county-by-county basis.

Not really. The militias in the colonies were authorized by their colonial charters and answered to the Royal Governor. They were not a ragtag mob with guns but had to drill and sometimes provide their own firearms. They were run by and answered to the colonial government. BTW many states today DO BAN private miltias. Make sure before you "recruit and train" that you don't live in one of these states.

the Drafters certainly intended that the citizens ALSO have the right to form and maintain an well regulated militia - apart from the federal government...There is no question that Militias were intended by the Drafters to be private organizations which were not controled by any central government.

That is absolutely and completely false and NO miltia ever legally existed as such in our history. Read Presser. The militia spoken of in the 2A were the State Miltias and today that is the National Guard. The unorganized miltia spoken about in 10 USC 311 is nothing more than a pool of individuals who may be used to fill the ranks of the organized miltia which is the National Guard. The unorganized militia has no rights, duties or responsibilities.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Ohio has a militia and Navy besides the NG.
The militia mostly trains in emergency response as I understand it.
I think the Navy does some patrolling in lake Eerie though.

 

[Eghad]

In Texas there is the Texas State Guard that is under the control of the Governor and the Texas Adjutant General and has no federal piece or mission that I can see. That would be about as close to a militia as you come these days. It is still under government authority.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Short answer is that the miltia is DEAD.

The answer is perhaps a little too short. I would argue not dead, but dormant. As long as it remains enshrined in the constitution, it can be raised by the states upon need or desire. In fact all it would take to circumvent NFA laws would be for a state to assert that it's citizens may be properly armed for the purposes of the state militia. And I don't mean with neutered, bullet button, kiddie magazined, dumbed down, California range toys.

"We, the state of _________ , hereby activate the miltia, and authorize it's citizens who are not prohibited from firearms ownership, to possess carry the following types and models of small arms __________ (fill in blank). Contact your state representative to sign up at http://www.jointhe_your_state_militia.com to register." (not a real website)

Gun folks want the militia so they can own military weaponry to play with but no one else wants one.

I suspect there might be quite a number of libertarians, who are not necessarily gun folks, who would be very keen to preserve the capability to raise a state militia.

Whether this right is ever exercised is somewhat irrelevant to the point that the capability and right of a state to do it remains enshrined in the constitution. Any laws which would say otherwise are actually subservient to the founding document. We can change that document, but we must follow the process prescribed.

If you want to hedge against tyranny VOTE! Be politically active and join the NRA. That will do more for freedom than the Tommy Gun in your closet (that you probably don't know how to use in modern combat).

Absolutely. The greatest enemy to our democracy isn't 2A infringement, it is ignorance and apathy. Like it or not, we as Americans have exactly the government that we repeatedly elect. And in places like Chicago that is a sad statement indeed.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The answer is perhaps a little too short. I would argue not dead, but dormant.

The answer may be short but for all practical purposes of any discussion about the militia it is true. The COTUS also has provisions for Letters of Marque and Reprisal too. Sure the states could raise one but for the reasons Al and I mentioned above they won't. There hasn't been a need for one (interesting stories about CA and MD in WWII notwithstanding) in over a hundred years. Modern warfare, professional LEOs and national armed forces have eclipsed them long ago. I think dormant is not a good term and dead is a better one but that is semantics to me. Also, I don't hear a lot of notable or mainstream Libertarians talking about militias. I do hear gun folk who want to own full auto and other destructive military arms talking about it.

 

[maestro pistolero]

TG, your absolutism on this subject is puzzling. There are active state guards in a number of states. There is no doubt that the role of a militia is presently minute compared to it's historical role. But it certainly has a role in the long term balance of power, even if largely symbolic at this time.

In a practical sense, any truly large scale natural or unnatural disaster could change this somewhat symbolic institution into an essential one literally overnight. Anyone who doubts this ignores history at their own peril. Besides our very young republic, name one iconically great society or government that didn't eventually meet it's demise. I'm waiting.

To believe the militia could never again serve a purpose for our survival as a people, as a system of government and as a way of life is naive. That it likely won't be in our lifetime is of no comfort. It is about preserving the capability for future generations, should they need it.

Eventually, they will need it. Let's hope that inevitable day doesn't come for a long, long time.

Not dead, TG. Dormant. And not all that dormant, either.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

TG, your absolutism on this subject is puzzling.

Really?

Seriously, I lump the militia in with the horse cavalry and the coastal artillery as a viable means of national defense. The "militias" you speak of like the TN guard for instance bear no relationship whosoever to the State Militias extant in 1789. They are not any type of military or LE force. They are mostly for non-military functions such as ceremonies and disaster relief and aid.

In a practical sense, any truly large scale natural or unnatural disaster could change this somewhat symbolic institution into an essential one literally overnight...To believe the militia could never again serve a purpose for our survival as a people, as a system of government and as a way of life is naive.

This is I think where we have a fundamental divergence of thought and historical perspective. Disasters and nations come and go. The lack or presence of a militia has no bearing on either. The militia was 1) a republican ideal of civic virtue 2) a cheap and economical way to defend a nation that had no real threat on it's borders and would have lots of time to respond to such threats if they came to pass. Those conditions are no longer extant and really the miltia was obsolete at the very time it incoporated in the COTUS. Washington and TJ saw that. As to the ideal, well it failed too because of my previous explanation of the aversion to military life of most americans.

I remember when I was in the Army Signal Corps folks saying that we should maintain our morse code skills because "you never know!" you might need it someday. Nevertheless we dispensed with it in favor of better technology and it is not used today. Like the miltia. Although it was used in Independence Day you know after "they" landed.

As to the TEOTWAWKI stuff I pay no heed to it as if that happens no miltia will make a difference. Just fantasy and that is why I think TFL bans such threads. Makes for good books though .

No MP the militia is dead. Dead and buried over hundred years ago. It lives only in the active imaginations of a few..like the hoss cavalry.