A well-regulated militia: an opportunity for change...

G

gregt

Inactive
Hi All,

FYI, I've posted this message on AR15.com and Vollmer's general discussion board, as well as having e-mailed it to the NRA and GOA.

No need to preach to the choir here about the unConstitutional nature of:
* Clinton's recent ban of the import of additional types of "assault weapons"
* The so-called "assault weapon" ban of 1994
* The 1989 ban on the import of rifles and pistols with certain politically incorrect features
* The 1986 ban on the registration of new machine guns with private citizens.

I think I may have an answer to this problem.

First, let me say that the long-term solution is to elect good people who will overturn these laws.

In the meantime, though, somebody with actual legal resources like the NRA or GOA ought to investigate the possibility of founding "a well-regulated militia".

Here are my thoughts about what this organization, which I am calling the U.S. Militia for lack of a better name, would look like:

* It would be non-profit
* It's mission would be something along the lines of promoting the safe use of firearms by responsible citizens, preserving our original freedoms as documented in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and preserving our heritage as best expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
* Members would pay an start-up fee to cover the cost of a background check. Essentially, members would need to be able to legally own a firearm in order to join.
* The age requirement to be a full-fledged member would be 18. Junior memberships, with parental approval, would be available to provide minors with firearms safety and marksmanship training.
* In order to be "well-regulated", members would have to be developed into safe and reasonably proficient shooters during their membership. The would be facilitated by an initial new member workshop, and regular meetings at local ranges.
* The militia would also have to make reasonable efforts to ensure that it's members remain in good standing with the law. One option might be for the organization to arrange to receive real-time updates of the "banned list" of individuals from the FBI, which the militia could cross-check with its membership list. Another alternative is to require members to renew their membership every year by undergoing an annual background check.
* ...and here's the benefit of having this organization: members would not be restricted from owning any sort of firearm assuming they passed the instant background check to complete the purchase. Yes, they could even register new NFA weapons. The hi-cap magazine ban would not apply either.

And I say we keep trying to make this U.S. Militia concept a reality every year until we succeed. This will take the combined efforts of the NRA, GOA, (the ACLU) and all the other pro-Constitution groups out there.

Thoughts?
 
I know your intentions are probably good, but this effectively creates a "class" of people and violates the "Right to equal protection" provisions of the Constitution. It could actually have the effect of creating a "National Gun Club" allowing the government to get all it's sheep into one pen, so to speak.

The way to fight these rediculous laws, in my opinion, is to harness the enthusiasm and money that might otherwise go into a plan like that and fight current law in the courts on Constitutional grounds. The Gun Owners Unification Project mentioned in this forum is a great way to start. It's not a club or organization but, rather, a grass roots movement of free people.

We need to force to court to recognize the militia, as defined by the Constitution, is all the people. We need to force the court to recognize that the second amendment does not describe our right to hunt or compete. The reasons for the RKBA is still here and more capable of dealing out tyranny now than ever before.

I also believe the equal protection angle is a good start because it insulates the action from the second amendment (politically unpopular at present) but strikes a nerve with minorities. No "class" of people should be granted rights and privaleges which are not granted to all. It might be a stretch to say the military creates a class of people but what about the police. They are, after all, civilians just like us. Then you move to the permit vs non-permit mode to encourage national reciprocity or, better yet, a Vermont model for all states.

Just my opinion

Mikey

[This message has been edited by Mikey (edited March 16, 1999).]
 
A couple of thoughts:

1. We are already the militia - or the armed citizenry from which this organization will be drawn from.
2. You can't have a "national" militia. This would be contrary to the ideals the Founding Fathers had in mind. Militia's are state and local groups to be drawn up in times of national emergency and as a "check" against a standing army.



------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
Gentlemen:

One thing that keeps coming up is we keep looking for ways around the lying rulings by our courts. They keep trying to tie in the 2nd to a Militia. Well here is some of what my research turned up on this subject.

The Georgia Supreme Court case of Nunn v. State 1837. In it the court rules: "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, and not merely such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in on, in the slightest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying of a well regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free state."

In Thomas Cooley, Principles of constitutional Law (1898) he states a summary
of the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment. [Section IV. -- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Constitution. --
By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that '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 amendment, like most other provisions
in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the
new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation
and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any
provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and
bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other
words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
Standing Army. -- A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them. What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.

I believe Cooley had everything right except for the last sentence, wherein he claims that concealed weapons may be prohibited. For this see the ruling by the court above.

In my research and travels over the 2nd one thing has become clear. The further one gets from our founding the more the 2nd is redefined. First laws they have tried to place on us is the hidden weapons laws. Over the past 60 years gun control laws have mushroomed.

No the right is a personal right. The only thing that the militia has to do with it is by insuring that all citizens are armed and well trained in their use, it affords the government the opportunity to draw upon this base to furnish their well-regulated militia.

I have had numerious debates and they always try and point out that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate the Militia. If we take this tack, then gun control laws are legal. No, it is and has to be a personal right. So when you get in an agrument with someone, remind them of the above.

Hope this helps,

Richard
 
Bookkie,
Add all this to the documented intent of our Forefathers and the current governmental trend is clearly without basis. Well done, Sir. Well done.
Dennis

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited March 16, 1999).]
 
gregt:

Please don't get me wrong by my prior post. I applaud your thinking. I was just trying to share some of the learning I have been through. I as you started out with all sorts of ideas. As I learned more, my ideas have changed. Please I don't want to discourage you from researching and learning the truth for yourself. We all need to do that and then share that knowledge amoung ourselves. My post was honestly meant as additional knowledge for you and anyone who is here.

I do have a copy of the 1982 Senate report on the right to keep and bear arms. Will e-mail it to anyone who wants a copy. Must reading for any serious student of the 2nd. It amazes me to read who drafted this report and then to see what their current views on the 2nd are. It's hard to immage Kennedy coming out and saying that the 2nd is a personal right that can not be infringed. Yet he does in this report. My e-mail address for anyone who is interested is bookkie@yolo.com. Or if everyone prefers I'll post a copy here.

Thanks,

Richard
 
Has anyone here read Justice Thomas's concuring opinion in the Printz case? (The Brady law case.) It's not a question of getting the courts to recognize anything at this point; It's a question of getting the NRA to challenge gun control laws on SECOND amendment grounds, not TENTH amendment grounds. Thomas basically said that the Court can't uphold the Second amendment if the Second amendment isn't raised as an issue in a court case reaching it! I've got a feeling that the NRA is afraid to give the Court an opening to rule on the Second amendment, because they fear an adverse ruling; But we've got the best Court in decades, and when you look at the sort of people the GOP is putting up for President, little prospect of the Court getting any better.
 
Brett:

I've been down this road. Talked with several people, NRA, GOA & a couple of attorney's. Yes they are afraid of taking it to the Supreme Court at this time. Reason. There is still a majority of judges who would rule against the 2nd. Unfortunately, Thomas is a minority in this regards. Just wish we had a few more honest Justices like Thomas.

Yes I did read Justice Thomas concuring opinion, was very uplifting for me. I also downloaded and kept a copy of the case of Prince vs. U.S. Makes for interesting reading? Not, execpt for Thomas's comments.

Thanks,

Ricahrd
 
Is anyone expecting the Court to get better? The Democrats have basically become a front for the gun control movement, to the extent that even Democrat NRA board members are "forced" to vote for gun control laws. (I've never had a decent explaination of exactly what sort of "pressure" was brought to bear on Dingle, nor why he thought he had a right to given into it.) As for the Republicans, they haven't run a pro-gun Presidential candidate since '84; The last one, Dole, didn't even bother to lie about it! The Supreme court is NOT going to become more friendly! I, too, have the impression that a majority of the Court isn't explicitly pro-gun. But if the majority were explicitly anti-gun, they would have found some excuse to rule against us in the Printz and Lopez cases. We have the academic cases nailed on both constitutional law and pragmatic grounds. There's no Supreme court precident against us, so we don't have to worry about Scalia's worship of stare decisis. The outcome of such a case isn't guaranteed, by any means, but we'd have a good shot at it. In any event, I didn't join the NRA to defend the TENTH amendment! I'm getting awfully tired of anti-gunners waving the NRA's refusal to mount 2nd amendment legal challenges around like some bloody flag, and I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't something to their claim that the NRA brass doesn't really believe their own rhetoric.
 
I hear you as to the NRA.... Have always wondered that myself. But until something better comes along.... I am supporting them. Maybe FOUP will take over????

Richard
 
On the NRA... you'll find as you look into them , that the NRA has become and has been for some time a buraucracy in its own right, and as such seeks to perpetuate and aggrandise itself, as all buraucracies do if they survive. The NRA doesn't want to win or lose, for in either situation they are greatly diminished in their ongoing power.
If they lose they have failed their mission, and they will not be able to garner support or financial stabily to continue to exist.... if they win , then a similar fate befalls them only shortly after , as they are no longer needed in many peoples eyes , having completed their assigned task: as before their membership and financial numbers will decay into rubble..... so they have no vested interest in the final victory... only in the ongoing struggle ...which they are loosing of course.... all the more need for funds and membership...The story is much the same with RKBA., JFPFR, GOA< et al... A POX on ALL THEIR HOUSES !!!
 
The NRA's main purpose is to foster the shooting sports. They have only taken up the defense of the 2nd out of necessity. I don't know about other chapters, but ours would welcome the chance to get back to the basics of teaching firearms safety and promoting competition shooting. Just a little in their defense. Although I would have to agree that they are not overly concerned with forcing the issue.

Richard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top